This administration has taken a very active stance in terms of exerting American influence all over the world by political, military, and economic means. They have also freed America of supposed “restraints” on American power by withdrawing (ABM Treaty) or not signing numerous international treaties our allies and many countries around the world have signed.
My question is should a candidate that Unity supports be in favor of getting America involved in large international agreements such as the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Treaty (easiest two that come to mind, they’re not necessarily the most important)? Or should America still keep itself free of these international agreements?
We are a member nation in an international community of nations. Its high time that we began behaving as one.
Click on www.america-21stcentury.com Posting of August 13 2024
popo
We have a tremendous influence indeed, and recent administrations have wielded this influence effectively for short term goals, at the expense of longer term vision. As a result, America, and to a certain extent even the principles of freedom and democracy, are seen as sinister forces which must be opposed. More and more world leaders are coming to power based on their opposition to America and its interests.
In the case of the topic at hand, we need to take a serious look at all aspects of these agreements. We will probably find that many if not most of these international agreements are in our long term interests.
No.. we are a sovereign nation. We should only choose to coorporate when it is in OUR best interests. We should only lead thru example and actions. If we get it right, others will follow.
Back in the 80's Henry Kissinger said about the war between Iraq and Iran, "...it's too bad they can't both lose." Well, it's interesting type o, "cooporate." It is in the best interest of corporations to keep this political beach ball in the air because it takes the public eye off of the real string pullers.
It has been a very long time since we have wielded control of our government and I think it's time we took it back. As far as co-operation is concerned, the phrase, "our best interest" these days seems more to do with the play ground negotiation between the bully and the victim; "three for me and one for you, three for me and one for you..."
In 1918 Picot and Sykes took out a map of the Middle East and divided it up; this will be where the French will be, this is where the English will be and this is for America. It was in our best interest to control these peasants because they don't know how to use wealth and we do. You might have noticed, the locals in the area have not taken to this plan of ours in the way we had hoped. They are pissed off and tired of being pissed on. They have been living there for three or four thousand years before our countries existed. It's a small wonder that they are not "going quietly into that good night."
Since America has emerged as the hegemonic power of the world, perhaps we should shelve the phrase, "our best interest," and consider a plan that enables our neighbors’ equal partnership. Empires have come and gone. They normally fade because of greed created disparity at home and abroad. America will follow suit unless it can get a grip on the power brokers who are pulling us in that same self serving direction but before we can actualize any such pipe dream, we have to take back our country. Currently the majority of our collective energy is spent on the best interests of Wall Street. Fox News likes to tout how well the stock market is doing and by inference, so are the people of this great land. I don't know about you, but the only million dollar check that is in my mail box is from Publishers Clearing house, and the bank, they just won't cash it!
Anonymous writes: "we are a sovereign nation. We should only choose to coorporate when it is in OUR best interest .."
I would suggest that this is a matter for debate. When it comes to issues of trade, employment, immigration ect. it seems we are quick to repulse any notion of sovereignity.
But when it comes to issues of the environment or military proliferation we MUST maintain our sovereignity.
Well, which is it?
Sovereign or not?
We cant play it both ways despite some interests desire to fog this paradox.
Anonymous, I could not have said it better my self.
My question is to Aye.
Should we behave as, Cameron, China, North Korea, D. R. Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Sierra Leone, or Zimbabwe? If I am not mistaken all of these gorgeous countries are a part of our growing international community.
What do you think?
What we should do is to bomb the hell out of switzerland and other non cooperating banking nations. All the fruits of evil end up in swiss banks .. fraud, corruption, embezzlement, money laundering, drug and sex trade profits,illegal trade, dictators skimmed money extracted from the poor, and tax fraud. We should refuse to do business with them until they clean up there act and become transparent. They are not even a member of the UN .. and for good reason. Switzerland has got a free ride for too long and its time to be accountable.
America's place as successor to the British Empire (and as, itself, a former colony of empire), was earned in the defeat by the Allies of Germany, Japan and fascism, and was promoted by the decision of the USSR, China and India to give socialism a rest.
With the success of America in peace, war, science and industry, and because our population is drawn from every place on earth, we have staked a claim to American exceptionalism.
Yet our 20th century claim to leadership in production may be eclipsed if China succeeds -- as we surrender economic power in exchange for lower global labor costs and higher corporate profits.
It's baffling and disgusting to me: in a few short years, the Info Tech revolution, robotics and bio- and nano- technology will allow machines to be more productive than people. China's population will not be any bigger than our's -- if we count intelligent machines and humans together -- not just humans alone.
Our place in the world may be as leader -- if there are any bad nations, networks or actors around. It may soon take only one bad actor to destroy what 6 billion good people are building.
On the other hand, some Americans see their own nation as bad -- and its old allies as the new goodies.
I have a feeling that "Foreign Policy" will furnish issues for the Left; "Terrorism" will do the same for the Right.
The tension between Powell and Rumsfeld will be felt in the Shout Box and coming elections.
If Islam fights all modernity, our place will be to lead the Allies against them. (It is not likely that Islam will do that. They may put an end to jihad and put aside the gun.)
And if we fight social and environmental justice, our duty and place will be to give market fundamentalism a rest.
John Gelles
http://unity08ws.wikispaces.com
http://www.tiea.us
Human rights and how to pay for them are key to a livable world.
In the past 6 years the respect for America has plummeted overseas. We are not respected - rather we are viewed as a nation that isn't interested in World Peace. I have been "interegated" by many overseas colleagues about the "leadership" shown by the US in international issues. How can a country that on paper promotes peace and equality for all - demonstrate in their actions that it is "my way or no way"? It is time for the US to show the world that we can lead, that we do believe in our Declaration of Independence and that we can put our beliefs into action. I am very tired of hiding my passport when traveling overseas!!
The United States cannot gain respect by following opinion polls.
Exactly who doesn't respect us? Switzerland? All the fruits of evil end up in swiss banks .. fraud, corruption, embezzlement, money laundering, drug and sex trade profits,illegal trade, dictators skimmed money extracted from the poor, and tax fraud. We should refuse to do business with them until they clean up there act and become transparent. They are not even a member of the UN .. and for good reason. Switzerland has got a free ride for too long and its time to be accountable.
Or perhaps the UN or Germany or france.. who were stealing money from the food for oil program .. and making the sanctions worthless.
Or maybe you had spain in mind.. a dump worse than mexico .. or russia who are returning to the serf and czar days.. or egypt or any corrupt middle east country.. stoning women or china.. .. GIVE ME A BREAK.
While the United States is busy policing the world, expending our people, money and resources, nations such as India and China are working toward becoming #1.
Anyone for a Chinese car in a year or two?
If you want to have an influence on a situation then it helps to have friends. A dog knows this. Hell, a bacteria knows this. So why is it so difficult for some of us?
A belligerent stance is not in America's long-term interest. China and India are ascendent. This is NOT the American Century.
So what? Do you think life is so horrible in once-dominant Greece, Italy, Spain or England? If you answer yes then I suspect you've never spent time in those nations.
We Americans have a right and a duty to protect our wonderful nation. We DO NOT have a right to bully other nations or other people.
And we should never, ever go to war in the interest of our corporate citizens because as soon as it is in their own best interest they, the US based global corporations, will move elsewhere.
martiniano you are completely on target that the our Unity08 Candidate has to have clear foriegn policy that stakes out our positions. The policy should have as a cornerstone that we will standby our friends and will NOT join in initiatives such as the World Court or Kyoto just for some machievellian need to be center stage. We have to have the confidence to go our own way in a NON-belligerant way.
ask Senator Chris Dodd who has now entered the race running...
i saw him on the Oreily Factor, Dodd is a loser plain and simple.
Sovereignty is the confused issue in our International relationships as I see it and a Unity08 candidate can make it clearer and more respected.
We have and should protect ourselves from aggression on our sovereignty through international agreements based on some "worldwide" organizations idea of a democratic process. But the other side of the coin is that other countries also have that veto in their interest.
Iran proves that it is not a simple issue to own your sovereignty. If 'might-makes-right', we have it, they don't.
It must be clear that we will act through diplomacy to respect any nations sovereignty. We can not go around unilaterally depriving others of sovereignty under the guise of threat prevention. It's a sword that cuts both ways and once drawn will never be sheathed again.
The military threat so far has not prevented anything and has no potential or intent to do so. Control is not a military mission.Seek and destroy is the military mission.
We need foreign policy more squarely and clearly set upon diplomacy and the world needs to know that it is coming.
The US should back up and honor the committments we have already made before adding more treaties, etc, that we latch onto, but never complete the committment. Cleaning up our own house is in order before we can effectively stick our nose in other situations.
Maybe the suggestion for a Dept of Peace isn't such a bad idea. A good plan for foriegn policy needs to envision what this planet will sustain 100 years from now. Our present path doesn't seem particularly care whether or not there will even be a planet to inhabit.
Good...
Exactly who doesn't respect us? Switzerland? All the fruits of evil end up in swiss banks .. fraud, corruption, embezzlement, money laundering, drug and sex trade profits,illegal trade, dictators skimmed money extracted from the poor, and tax fraud. We should refuse to do business with them until they clean up there act and become transparent. They are not even a member of the UN .. and for good reason. Switzerland has got a free ride for too long and its time to be accountable.
Or perhaps the UN or Germany or france.. who were stealing money from the food for oil program .. and making the sanctions worthless.
Or maybe you had spain in mind.. a dump worse than mexico .. or russia who are returning to the serf and czar days.. or egypt or any corrupt middle east country.. stoning women or china.. .. GIVE ME A BREAK.
California, certainly, and any state that voted Blue, should provoke all aggressive discourse toward breaking up the United States. It seems as though those who sought to break it up before, now succeed in running its affairs, and in the same manner as they ran their failed plantations. These people are not republicans, they are Dixiecrats. They are people without respect for their fellows, and seek only the rule of law when it suits them.
Its time to break up this party. There's no army to stop us here now.
REMEMBER WHY WE ARE AT WAR
The American people cannot afford to be complacent; we cannot be tempted by tunnel vision. We must be alert, pay attention, and stay behind the eight ball. We must understand the war that we are fighting, and stay focused on why we are fighting it.
The West, and the state of Israel have been under attack. Israel since 1948, the United States directly since September of 2024. The Arab-Muslim fanatics of the world have declared war, and have done so under the cowardly cover of the Islamic religion. There is no place in the world then right here, in the United States of America, that has more religious people. Our diverse religious faiths here in America all teach peace, good will towards men, and compassion.
You will not find in our faiths any teachings of hatred, of suicide bombings, of hostage taking, of blowing up planes, or attacking and killing innocent people in high-rise buildings. No, here in America, our religious faith is alive and well, and honest.
The people we are dealing with are using religion as their politics. In fact, their politics is their religion, and that is what makes them so dangerous for the world. They seek to destroy Western civilization, as we know it, and the state of Israel. They preach hatred, death, and destruction, and will go to any costs to pursue those goals.
We must stop them. We will defeat them. That is why we are at war, and that is why we are in this place in World history. They are the aggressors, and we have no choice but to destroy all of them. Our very existence depends on every one of us, as Americans, not forgetting any of this for one moment.
Kirk Polizzi
Chillicothe, IL
OUR MILITARY AND NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE EARLY 21ST CENTURY
By Kirk Polizzi
The United States today, has the greatest military in the world, and as we stand today, we are the only superpower still standing. For the security of our own nation, and for the defense of our true allies and friends in the world, this must continue. Our challenges today, are different then they were twenty years ago, but they are even much different then they were just ten years ago. We are facing a world war with Arab-Muslim terrorist fanatics, who will go to any means to kill, not only our men and women in uniform, but innocent Americans all over the world, and here at home, on our own soil. At the same time, although communism is not the expansionist threat it once was during the Cold War, the communist nations still standing, like Mainland China, North Korea and Cuba, have increased, not weakened, their hold on power in their respective countries.
Because communism is a dying breed of government, those who are still in power, the true believers, and maybe the last believers, have no reason to end their oppressive control anytime soon. We see that countries like North Korea, and Mainland China continue to increase their military spending, preparedness, and their aggressive posture. They are doing so, not so much to over run or threaten their weaker neighbors with domination, as was the case during the Cold War, but rather are doing so for their own defense and survival. The last thing the communist leaders in Beijing and Pyongyang want to see is the fall of their communist states, similar to what occurred in Eastern Europe, and the old Soviet Union. It will not be anytime soon, when Chinese leaders or the leadership in North Korea give up their oppressive hold on power.
With the world war against terrorists and the terrorist states, which sponsor them, and our continued watch over the remaining communist countries, the United States can never have enough military preparedness or security. It must be a work in progress, a continued upgrading and modernization of our military forces. Today, the United States has not only the greatest military in the world, but the greatest technological military as well. This advantage over our adversaries and future enemies is second to none in the world, and it must remain that way.
With these advantages at are disposal, the United States must use them at anytime we are threatened, either over seas, or here at home. The American solider, the infantryman, is still important, still relevant, even in this fast moving technological world, but it is not as important as it was during the 1950’s or the 1960’s. Today, the United States military has forces scattered all over the globe as we always have. Because we are a superpower, we do have forces in many places overseas that must remain, in areas of danger and instability. In other countries and on other continents, the threat to U.S. national security and to our allies has diminished sharply since the end of the Cold War. In no place is this clearer, then on the continent of Europe, where twice, in the 20th century world wars erupted. As of 2024, in Germany, now a unified country, the United States has almost 70,000 troops stationed. There is another 11,000 in Great Britain, America’s number one European ally, and another 12,000 in Italy. On the continent of Europe alone, the United States has 105,000 men and women stationed, guarding and protecting, democratically elected governments from what?
The Russian army is no longer a threat to Western Europe, as it stands now, the only threat to Western Europe at all, is the worldwide war against Arab-Muslim terrorists. Most of the countries in Europe were well ahead of the United States when it came to fighting terrorism, right up to our September 11, 2024 attacks. Great Britain, Spain, France and Italy, all had their share of terrorist attacks over the years, and all handled them well, with swift retribution. The nations of Western Europe, with their own military personnel are quite capable of defending themselves from today’s threats. The NATO commitment to Western Europe must always remain, but for the United States to continue to station over 100,000 U.S. troops on the continent of Europe needs to be re-examined. We can only wonder, what another 100,000 troops in Iraq, would have done to speed up our military withdrawal from that country. Every military expert is telling us that had more U.S. troops been sent into Iraq to begin with, it is possible our job, whatever it is, may have been completed by now.
Unless we are fighting a world war like the ones in 1917, and again in 1941, actual ground troops, used to defeat an expansionist enemy, then to occupy, after that defeat, may not be needed in today’s world. The present war in Iraq is a case in point. The real reason, the only reason, the United States went to war against Iraq in the first place, was to overthrow Saddam Hussein, destroy his army, and then find and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Those were the reasons. Forcing a democracy on an Arab populace, occupying the country, all of that was created later, by leaders in Washington, who had to justify why these ground troops were there, especially, after the WMD were never found. Saddam was captured, using elite special forces, and the Iraqi army was totally destroyed in the first weeks of the U.S. invasion. Once the WMD were never found, after a period of search, the United States could have left Iraq, and pulled out of the country, with its original mission at least eighty percent accomplished; Saddam and his henchmen out of power, captured, and the Iraqi army destroyed, with WMD an intelligence failure. A CIA failure is much easier to accept, then having the loss of 2,000 young men and women in uniform, because our leaders changed course and decided to make Iraq a U.S. style democracy.
The point here is clear. To destroy Saddam Hussein, to defeat his army, did not take 150,000 ground troops, U.S. naval and air power alone could have achieved that goal. We saw what NATO airpower did for seventy-five days in Kosovo in 1999, it defeated the Serbian army. The technological advances of our military today, can defeat our enemies and our adversaries, with minimal cost to American lives. In every war, in every battle, in every fight, we will always have casualties. It is the duty however, of our commander’s and chiefs to do all they can to reduce the casualties of those combatants. Iraq became a mess because our leaders changed their strategy when WMD were never found. We are paying a heavy price today, because of that change in strategy, one, that is doubtful that it will ever work- democratizing an Arab populace.
The idea of pre-emptive military strikes and war is a noble one, and it is as old as our republic. I am a supporter of the thought that to strike at our enemies and adversaries before they can achieve any advantage, whether it be a form of nuclear or biological blackmail, or any other threat, is indeed a good policy, meant for nothing more then the security of the United States and our people. In 1994, the United States came very close to hitting North Korea’s nuclear facilities, before a diplomatic settlement was reached. That agreement we have found was broken by North Korea, which should not be surprising, since it is a communist state. Because of that diplomatic blunder, today, North Korea possesses at least eight nuclear warheads, and the chance now, to strike at their nuclear facilities has passed. The United States is in a weak position because we allowed North Korea to obtain those weapons and we waited too long to do anything about it, with the exception of a full scale war on the Korean Peninsula. That option for any commander and chief is a no winner. Had the United States went ahead with its original plans in 1994, striking the nuclear facilities of North Korea, today, that communist country would not have a nuclear weapon.
The idea of pre-emptive war does have strong merit, when and only when, our intelligence is correct. That has become the problem with the Iraq war, our intelligence failed us badly. The idea of Saddam Hussien having any WMD spooked our leaders rightfully so, and a pre-emptive attack was launched, unfortunately, those weapons were never found.
As this is being written another country, Iran, is defying the international community, and going ahead with its desire to obtain a nuclear capability. This time around, our leaders will not allow this to happen. Either the United States and, or Israel, will no doubt, take out Iran’s nuclear facilities. The world, especially the United States and Israel, cannot sit idly by and allow Iran to join the nuclear club. We have already seen what occurred in Asia when we tried to use diplomacy to stop North Korea, it did not work. In reality, diplomacy has never worked in all human history in stopping a country, any country, whether it is communist, a free democracy, or a radical regime, in building a nuclear arsenal. These nations will go ahead with their programs and plans regardless of the diplomacy that is taking place. Generally, diplomacy and talking, is nothing but a stalling tactic by the country trying to posses a nuclear weapon. They figure as long as they are talking, the United States will not have any reason to take out their nuclear facilities. As a matter of speaking, there is really nothing to talk about- radical regimes with dangerous leaders, and terrorist countries, have no business having one nuclear weapon, period.
The United States has no business pushing its weight around the world just because we are the only superpower still standing. We cannot however, in this post 9/11 world sit, wait, and watch, radical regimes and unstable leaders go forward with nuclear weapons. In the case of both North Korea and Iran, their nuclear capabilities would have never seen the light of day, had we, pre-empted them by military force. All of this could have been done without one U.S. ground troop. It is possible that special elite forces may have been used before an initial air bombardment from U.S. Air force and naval forces, but the use of thousands of troops would be totally unnecessary, in today’s U.S. military makeup.
The United States can achieve many of its national security objectives without the use of U.S. ground troops. We have learned many bloody lessons in both Vietnam and in Iraq today, that once boots are put on the ground, it is difficult to get them out of the country. In both the first Persian Gulf War, driving Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, and in Kosovo to drive out the Serbian army, air and naval forces carried the day in defeating the enemy, with ground forces hardly used. U.S. technological advances with our military capabilities are moving fast and furious. Today, four men, sitting in a military installation in Colorado, fly a drone aircraft, in Afghanistan, with them, being the pilots of that aircraft, by computer remote control. These advances have put the United States in an advantageous position over all our enemies and adversaries.
The question that must really be asked is: What good is having the best military in the world, if you are not going to use it? We must remember to use military force only as a last resort, but in times of war, which we are now facing worldwide against terrorists, force is our only option. We cannot forget as well, that the United States homeland was attacked, that we did not start this war, our enemies did, and only we can end it, but we must end it on our terms, not theirs.
Because our country was attacked directly on September 11, 2024, all of our nation’s resources regarding national security issues should be focused here, on the homeland. It is important to keep a watchful eye on both North Korea and Iran, but we must be equally alert to all of our homeports and borders, and national coastlines. The United States cannot afford another catastrophe like 9/11. I believe we have been lucky at best, so far. The U.S. Coast Guard has ships and boats over forty years old, and many sitting in disrepair. This is totally unacceptable, especially for a superpower engaged in a world war against Arab-Muslim terrorists. If the United States can dispatch the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier anywhere in the world, we should be able to dispatch a U.S. Coast Guard ship anyplace along the American coastline at a moments notice. Presently we cannot. Our coastlines are not secure for a time of war, nor are our borders being secured. At ports here, in the United States, cargo is moving in with little or no scrutiny. This too, is not a way to secure the mainland in a time of world war.
Our National Guard units and our military reserves would be doing our nation a much greater service securing and patrolling the U.S. mainland, then patrolling the streets of Baghdad, Iraq. Some of the 105,000 U.S. troops stationed in Western Europe could be more useful here, at home, protecting America and American borders. With a budget last year of $405 billion, the U.S. military should be able to more evenly, by security priority, have our armed forces more spread out, and more wisely based.
The United States in this time of war has plenty of enemies around the world, and we must be prepared to face them, and combat them if need be. Our national security must be the prime responsibility of our nation’s leaders from both political parties. To debate and question actions that are taken during a build up to war, or how a war is being implemented, is all fine and good. But to question our rights or our reasons to go to war, as if our leaders decide to go to war for shallow or some personal reasons, is totally off base and wrong. No U.S. president, whether a he or a she, or a Republican or a Democrat, would have done a thing differently, then our present president, after September 11, 2024. A president’s job is to keep America and the American people secure from our enemies.
Now, we are in a worldwide war, which I truly believe is World War III, even the most aggressive actions taken by our country, sometimes on the surface seem radical, or unconstitutional, but they still must be done for the security and the safety of our people and our men and women in uniform. In this war we are fighting we seem to be confusing who our enemies are. This has become a major problem. In the Arab-Muslim Middle East, our allies are few, and really non existent. After all, these are the people we are fighting and trying to defeat. Few of these so-called friends have done much to help us defeat these Muslim fanatics. I find it hard to believe that our leaders think that Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, are really on the level, and a true ally in this war. After September 11, 2024, I trust no one, especially, those in the Arab-Muslim world.
Our struggle against North Korea too, has its discrepancies. The six party discussions that were used had China, as one of its participants. Our leaders here once again, really miss the point. China has always been an ally to North Korea, the Korean War made that abundantly clear, a nuclear North Korea in reality, strengthens Mainland China, who already is becoming very strong militarily. As of 2024, China had 2,255,000 men under arms, North Korea had 1,106,000, in comparison, the United States a nation involved in a worldwide war, has 1,434,000. Numbers are always deceiving, but these figures do show the reasons behind using advanced naval and air power instead of ground forces to defeat an enemy or possible adversary. It is very doubtful that the United States would ever defeat Communist China in a war, man for man. It is obvious that the United States would have to use other military methods, and our great technological advantages would for sure be used.
A strong U.S. Navy, Air Force, a stronger Coast Guard, along with elite special forces, like commandos and others, must be invested into our 21st Century military. All of these investments will keep America the number one military in the world, here on Earth. Another investment that must be continued is in our space program, and especially, in our nation’s intelligence capabilities. We must continue to use outer space for peaceful purposes, but we need to be aware, that we can utilize the Heaven’s for our own national security for a defensive military posture. To not use space as another military deterrent, as a defensive tool, with all the technologies at our disposal, would be fool hearty, as we face new challenges and new enemies. The United States has satellites flying through space that can photograph and detect what our adversaries and enemies are up to. On the ground, is where we are very vulnerable, as we need more spies in those countries keeping tabs on what is really happening at those chemical plants, nuclear sites, and terrorist training centers.
All of these investments will take money, real taxpayer money, of billions and billions of dollars, but I believe the American people, now living in the post 9/11 world will not complain. In the days and weeks that followed the surprise attack by Japan at Pearl Harbor, on December 7, 1941, the American people were shown over and over again on newsreels that carnage. Our nation rallied and proved we were up to the task before us. Today, when any of us, as Americans, see the World Trade Center crashing down, after those planes strike it, we are reminded of the death, destruction, and the evil of that horrific attack. That event, which will be etched in the memory of every American who lived through it, makes our cause greater, our resolve and determination stronger then ever. The American people despise crime and war, and at the site where the twin towers stood is just that, a crime scene, but Americans will fight justifiable wars and will always fight crime.
The victory we seek in this 21st Century over our enemies is a victory of right over wrong, good over evil, realism and common sense over fanaticism, and a peace through our over whelming strength. As the 21st Century progresses, the United States of America and our people cannot, and must not, be complacent, we have got to be alert, ready, and willing to use whatever we have in our great military arsenal to insure our safety and security, and to keep the peace, with our strength in tact. Let us make no mistake about it, our enemies are watching us closely, and they are planning their next move. One fact is for certain, their move will be an offensive one, and we have got to be prepared.
The 20th Century was the bloodiest on record for all of mankind, we can reverse the outcome for the 21st Century, for it to be a more safe and secure, less violent and bloody one hundred years, only if we keep our nation’s military second to none in the world. God willing, we will do so, not only with a continuing stronger and better military, but with a smarter one as well. This is the military we will need for the 21st Century, and for our survival as a nation.
Kirk Polizzi
Professor U.S. History
907 N Santa Fe Ave
Chillicothe, IL 61523
KDP
March 12, 2024
Too many commas!
Leaving aside all moral questions about the war, do you think that after all of the lives, the Iraqi lives and our grandchildren's money that has been spent, that we are making reasonable progress on managing the terrorism that threatens our world?
I'd be curious what other people think. It seems that our leaders -I include all the Dems who voted for the war- have played right into Al Queda's hands. Anyone who seems to be an expert on these things, says their networks have gotten much stronger, and the recruiting and training they are doing in Iraq will help them greatly in the long run.
We can debate whether it was RIGHT or WRONG on some moral basis for a long time.
I just don't think the price is worth any benefit that makes any sense to me. In fact, I think it was a really stupid investment of resources.
If America were a company, and I were a major stockholder, I would do my best to fire anyone who wasted that amount of resources with so little to show for it.
Terror is modern war like it or not it will never go away as it is the only means the deprived mass can fight the strong few in most places around the world where democracy does not exist. Like our own revolution, the big difference is we did not kill woman and children or chop off heads to do it! The only solution is the application of GPS based security systems, walls on both borders and in Iraq, moving our inspection points for ports offshore! Hey while your at it use old planes for luggage and new planes for passengers so we are not sitting on bombs please! www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
.
Professor of History Kirk Polizzi has revealed his formal scholarly achievement -- after many earlier demonstrations or his power to see what is happening.
I plead with Kirk and the rest of our membership to admit an obvious failing: We are mostly asking each other and our nation to solve detailed defense, environmental, social and political problems.
Every one of these solutions are primarily constrained in America by our wilful ignorance of economic mobilization -- and how it must simultaneously support all industrial, military, diplomatic, moral and morale, mobilization and reform.
America as a singlular superpower is not likely to remain so for long -- nor is that position even true or necessary today: Russia can destroy all life on earth without a moment's notice -- by accident or design. That makes us a co-superpower right now.
Moreover, it makes more sense to think of a world with the EU, North America, Russia, Japan, China, India and Brazil, as Great Powers -- who must be pledged and allied to each other as protectors of peace in the world.
Standing in the way of such urgently needed development is the global approach to money.
Money and price and the things that money can buy are THREE sides of a triangle of a new economics that demands that we take the base of the triangle -- PRODUCTION OF THE THINGS THAT MONEY CAN BUY -- seriously. We must then conform the other two sides, MONEY and PRICE, to the needs of peace where possible -- and and the needs of war if necessary.
Kirk, I plead with you to get your Professor friends who agree with your faith in America and in liberty and justice for all, who are professionally interested in production, distribution, banking, money, employment, wages, and the origins and function of the middle class, to join you in this Unity effort -- to wake up our crowd to our missing economic mobilization (to mimick to the necessary degree all that we did after 1941 to build the arsenal of democracy almost from the ground up).
We must echo VP Chaney -- deficits do not matter; or the late Maynard Keynes -- money to employ the last man looking for work is already at hand, if we have something for him to do; or Abba Lerner -- taxes are unnecessary except to prevent inflation; or the advice we can receive from professional economists at the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability at the University of Missouri, Kansas City; or the views of professionals contributing to the Post Autistic Economics Review, headquartered (I believe) in Paris, France.
No Great Power has need or right to tolerate unemployment at home or among its neighbors where idleness is root cause for misery and sometimes terrorism.
Moreover, we need super-high-tech means to protect our homelands and prevent bombings or even worse: we must able to find a needle in haystack, able to prevent bombers before they think to get started, able to fathom root causes and attend to them.
In short, we need to use every idle brain and body to solve intractable problems or solve their own personal problems before they go bad.
And, as a last resort, we must bag up the incorrigible to be kept in custody -- to protect the rest of us from their designs.
John Gelles
http://unity-now.wikispaces.com
http://www.tiea.us
Human rights and how to pay for them are key to a livable world.
My grandfather used the expression, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Kirk, military superiority is a good thing. The key question for America and its place in the world is what other, complementary tools should we have in our toolkit? A hammer isn't suited to all tasks.
Isn't there also a role for economic leadership, educational and intellectual prowess, diplomacy, integrity/moral leadership, technological advances, etc. How do we develop and exercise these other strengths to have a more extensive toolkit?
With more tools, wouldn't the US have more flexibility in how to address and react to various situations that arise around the world?
Anonymous and I have agreed that military power needs supplementary powers, ideas and systems, to achieve the results we all want.
His metaphor of the big lonely hammer brings to mind a variation that is important: suppose we had only the biggest hammer and the biggest wad of cash money?
Think of the possibilities: we would not have to hit anything that looked like a nail -- but we could pay for anything that looked promising.
Think on that for while. Then think on the idea that all the great powers with a central bank have wads of cash money to employ all their people if only they'd look in their pockets.
John Gelles
Unity Now
Human rights and how to pay for them are key to a livable world.
We need to better utilize our soft powers, but I disagree with the assumption that we've used our "hammer" exclusively.
It is our unwillingness to use our military power aggressively that sends mixed signals to terrorists and enemy regimes. America is not a militarily aggressive country. We need to become one. Let's take off the gloves.
At the moment, the response to "terrorism" is our "foreign policy". Furthermore, our last two presidential elections defined an international relationship that I'm not sure Americans fully understood when the ballots were cast.
If we are The Preeminent Global Power (and I agree that we are), and if there are inherent responsibilities in this role (and I believe that, too), then it's high time we -- Americans -- took off some parochial blinders. We don't have the luxury of voting in a vacuum, and we are, by default, in a position of responsibility.
Regime-change and forced democracy was hardly a consensus, but we elected this course of action. Do you think people would support it, if it were presented to them as an individual policy issue? I don't know whether they would or wouldn't, frankly, but I think there's a fair amount of resentment (and thus partisanship) about having our foreign policy taken in an unanticipated direction.
First, a brief summary of my creds. I have written and published two books. For 3 ½ years I was a columnist for a Midwest newspaper. Currently, I am a columnist with a major news Web site. I have been a student of Mideast affairs since the sixties, and the intensity level was ratcheted up a bit by researching for my second book, which dealt with Islamic terrorism, and by 9/11.
I was very much opposed to our invasion of Iraq in March 2024 because I knew that the causes of that war were filled with deceit. I had very serious doubts that Iraq had WMD’s and felt we should not go to war on a maybe. We now know that he had none. I knew that Saddam had virtually nothing to do with 9/11 and that Saddam and al Qa’ida were not in league with one another. They were, in fact, enemies. Yet, Iraq’s WMD’s and the Iraq/al Qa’ida alliance were the two reasons we went to war, and they were both lies manufacture by Rumsfeld’s intelligence factory.
Unfortunately, that is all ancient history, and we cannot do a thing to change it. Put a different way, we must deal with it. And we must also deal with today’s realities. Iraq is falling into the abyss of uncontrolled and undeclared civil war. In May and June, 6,000 Iraqi civilians were killed, incalculable numbers wounded, combined with an enormous amount of property damage. As of mid-July over 1100 Iraqis have been killed. Also, the situation in Palestine is spinning out of control as Israel launches attacks on Hezbollah and Lebanon, while Hezbollah returns the favor by launching rockets at northern Israeli cities. In other words, matters are getting worse, not better.
So, what is America doing about that? Nothing – status quo for the last 3 1/2 years of bloodshed. Don’t misunderstand me. The troops we have there are doing the very best they can. There are just not enough of them. There never has been. Many viewed with dismay that Rumsfeld sent in only two divisions to take Baghdad in the spring of 2024. Baghdad “fell,” but we have never been in control of Baghdad or the surrounding countryside to include the Sunni Triangle that contains such cities as Ramadi, Fallujah, and Tikrit (Saddam’s home town) and the Triangle of Death south of Baghdad. At 127,000 our troop level in Iraq is as low as it has ever been with Baghdad in turmoil and rival sectarian militia killing each other at an alarming rate. Our sparse troops are being asked to contend with this while trying to bring security to Iraq, cooperating with the dysfunctional Iraqi police and an Iraqi army whose loyalties are in serious question.
How do we reply to all of this? Let’s allow Rumsfeld to be our spokesman. After all, he is our Secretary of Defense. On his most recent visit to Iraq a few weeks ago he stated that each time he comes to Iraq he sees more progress. This astonishing viewpoint illustrates the problem. The Bush administration is fighting terrorists with too few troops, rhetoric, and slogans. Islamic terrorists are fighting with suicide bombers, car bombs, IED’s, AK-47’s, and Qassam and Katyusha rockets.
Put a different way, the U.S. is showing weakness. Showing weakness before an Islamic terrorist is akin to pouring gasoline on a roaring fire. That is why we are seeing Iraq blow up in our face and Palestine becoming a smoldering battlefield again. Incidentally, Hamas and Hezbollah are controlled, financed, and supported by the Islamic theocracy in Iran. It is quite conceivable that when Hamas captured Cpl. Gilad Shalit that it knew long-quieted Hezbollah would enter the fray, dividing the IDF (Israeli Defense Force).
Those are the hard, cruel, and bloody facts. It is reality. Now what do we do about it? Fold up our tents and go home? That option provides short-range benefits with a soon-to-befall long-range disaster. No Westerner anywhere would be safe, perhaps, for an eternity. Or should we attempt the tried and proven doctrine of overwhelming force in Iraq? One might well assume I support the later.
As many of you know, Iraq has a long border with Iran.
Does Bush have the courage to do this? The past half-decade indicates no, he does not. And Congress is even less popular than Bush, as if that were possible. In November Congress will be reminded that the American people hire politicians to represent them. It is called a republic. When politicians become too engrossed in their own self-interests, we then fire them.
We need a powerful third party. We need a powerful third party that speaks for the powerful moderate American, not the Bible-waving right nor the incompetent tree-hugging left.
Islamic terrorism
Sandy on July 21, 2024 - 8:30pm
Nothing like specificity. What books? What newspaper? What website?
CONCLUSION/ ECONOMIC CALL TO ARMS
By Kirk Polizzi
Some might say that this economic thesis is a lot of doom and gloom. To the contrary, it is just the opposite: it is an economic theory of growth, expansion, and letting every American share in the American dream. It is an economic idea to build a strong U.S. economy and to give all people hope.
None of us, whether we are Democrats or Independents, can claim that our economy today is all fine and good. We know better. Let’s face it; the Republicans certainly do not count, because they are running the country at the moment. They will take any good economic statistic and exaggerate its meaning. They will take any bad economic number, and down play its importance. To be fair, the Democrats practiced that form of economic communication too, when they were in power. We, the people, we can see through all these numbers that are released by Washington, because we are living it.
We all know the truth; we all believe that our government can do a better job in handling our economy. Today, we have too many career politicians, too many partisans, who put their party and ideology ahead of their country. That is not the America any of us want. I have hope for my country, and I see a brighter future for all of us, if we adopt these economic ideas.
It is everything that any American would want. A living wage, tax reductions and incentives for small businesses, a sharp middle class tax reduction, fair trade for America, becoming energy independent, lift all Americans up the economic ladder by sharing the wealth, tough immigration policies, and fiscal policies which reduces over all federal spending, gives more responsibility to the individual states, and gets a handle on our entitlement programs.
I know all of this can work, because it all makes good economic sense. We must force our leaders to act, and act now, to preserve tomorrow. Never before have I had more faith in the American people to get this done. We have seen “them” in action, the conservative Republicans and the liberal Democrats, and we have all seen enough. It’s time for that real change, and the time is now.
Kirk Polizzi
Chillicothe, IL
We should not sign any agreements such as the ABM Treaty or Kyoto Accord. The sovereignty of all countries is compromised by these sorts of agreements.
Currently we are the parent figure within the world. To a great extent France and England are the grand parents. As long as we are the parent’s things are going to get done our way. It has been this way since the United States became an “adult” in WWII. I hope that for the next century things stay the same.
Re America's place in the world
Greg Glover on July 22, 2024 - 6:45pm
Have no fear, the Kyoto Accords will never be signed. It's a Democratic party red herring. It was voted down by the senate 99-0 and even clinton said he would not sign it.
This is addressed to Anonymous who requested “specificity” as it relates to my background as an author and columnist. I abhor self-promotion. I did not become active here to promote my books. That is being done on another venue, and to do it here would be singularly inappropriate. Nor do I wish to divulge the news Web site for which I write for the same reason. Put a different way, I prefer to remain “anonymous” and allow my statements to speak for me.
Islamic terrorism
Sandy on July 23, 2024 - 3:46pm
Of course, we understand. Openness and transparency are much over rated. Operating in secrecy is certainly more effective. I question campaign contribution disclosures - why is it anyones business who I give to? I surely dont want to know who ghost wrote all the books for hillary, gore, mccain..etc. The NYT should be smited for exposing all those military secrets too. It's no ones business to know if I have HIV or not. And lets not even talk about all those swiss banks accounts where all our foreign aid ended up.
Because of the advanced economic advances being made by the Chinese requires these things be addressed immediately in greater terms of national security violation by our banking institutions and more! All existing treaties must be reconsidered as well as all WTO policy and programs of trade, as all are effected by these dramatic decreases in the cost of social process the Chinese have discovered that we have not, putting us at a disadvantage that needs to be addressed immediately... www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Sandy,
You cannot have it both ways if you introduce your expertise as evidence in support of your statements then you should disclose evidence of your expertise.
Otherwise just post "blah, blah, ..." expressing your position.
If you want to say I am the author of books and on and on in order to make your arguement more authoritative then substantiate your authorship.
vry,
RET
From sea to shining sea! With thousands of ships in both! All with missile interecept capability! And if any nation wants to fight for human rights and freedom in the world we will give them a 35% discount for Air support and logistics... they will have to issue drivers license and positive I.D.'s themselves, oh yes - also provide us with enemy positions... Earn Snyder
Author "$aving the bureaucracy - Killing the beast"
Modern Progressive Independent
www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
I'm certainly no expert on foreign policy, but we sure can make a mess out of international politics. Our foreign policy, 200+ years old, is constantly preaching our way is the right way, to countries with cultures dating back thousands of years. These other cultures have survived longer than most, so why would they consider us to be the only ones who are right? We should spend more time communicating with them instead of trying to push them towards democracy. Look at our failed policies in Vietnam. I think we are way to pushy and we now see countries starting to push back.
Patrick Springer
Connecticut
Reagan had it right.
I believe in theory our foreign policy is correct. In practice, the civilians always screw it up. In Vietnam if we had allowed our Generals to do there job some 2 million Vietnamese would not have been murdered. I feel again today, as it pertains to Iraq; we may have won the battle but we will not win the war. If we are at war why has President Bush not gone to Capital Hill and ask them to Declare War?
As it pertains to you post Mr. Springer our preaching is correct. We are a 230 year-old government. We as a government are only third to England and Switzerland. When you compare a Government to a culture you are mixing apples and bananas. The fact that a country has within it a 4000 year-old culture but has a 70 year-old government show immaturity. If a people can not govern themselves or protect themselves from invasion shows immaturity.
Our people are mature. Our government is mature. The people we are currently electing are weak, myopic and self indigent.
Retired but Active
It is basically correct to say that "culture endures but governments change". It has been this way throughout recorded history. In the United States we have a relatively old government but no real culture. This is because of the mixing pot nature of our population. We are made up of people from around the world, all of whom have a different culture to some degree. And, this is good I believe. A variety of cultures in a society and government gives us the ability to see many different viewpoints without endangering our basic government. There are exceptions to this idea, however.
The most pressing exception today is the "culture" of the Muslim Religions. This culture is one that has as a basic tenant the total destruction of ALL infidels. And, the definition of an infidel in the Muslim religion is quite clear. Any person that is NOT a Muslim is an infidel. The Koran and most written and spoken guidelines to the practice of this religion call for the death or subjugation of ALL infidels. It matters not whether this takes place in 10 years, 100 years, or even thousands of years. The primary goal of EVERY Muslim is to promote the Muslim religion and to further the basic belief that ONLY the Muslim can survive. In this religion it is REQUIREMENT that all "believers" make every effort to further the elimination of infidels in the name of God. Whether the Muslim is a "citizen" of the United States, Briton, France, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or any other place, the overriding guideline to his life is the elimination of all NON-BELIEVERS. This has been the basic tenant of Muslims since the fourth century and it will never change.
Given this, the non Muslims of the world can only hope to CONTAIN the Muslim threat. Because of this absolute need, we cannot continue to battle the insurgents in Iraq. The insurgents are only insurgents to the United States and its coalition partners. Just look at the "democratic" leadership in Iraq and study their new Constitution. Notice the preeminent position of ISLAM and the recognition of Mohammed and the absolute truth of his teachings and charges. It matters not WHO wins in Iraq, the Sunnis or the Shias. In the end, the basic tenants of ISLAM will be the ruling factor.
Since this is true, we have little choice but to do WHATEVER is necessary to keep this plague on humanity contained. And, George Bush and his lap dogs are NOT doing anything that will further this need. If we continue to operate in the Middle East as we have done for the past 5 years we will NEVER be able to leave with ANY improvements in the situation at all. It will only continue to get worse.
You are 100% correct about Iraq.
I would like to make two comments. Maybe we would all be better off if we would wave a Bible now and then and even hug a tree. Secondly the Kyoto Protocol is an important treaty we should have signed. Only us and Australia refused. You people who oppose it I hope calmer heads prevail down the road. I am hoping our decendants will not have to walk around with an oxygen tank hooked to them.
We stand in front of a powerful army in Iraq. I look east and west and see no army. I only see children with stones and women teaching their children to murder. Experience tells me now is the time to finish the enemy once and for all as Russia and China will stand down I assure you regardless of their threats... For we offered them this authority and they refused to help - so get the hell out of our way then... - Earn Snyder
Author "$aving the bureaucracy - Killing the beast"
Modern Progressive Independent
www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Our total military troops come to about 800,000 active. Since Clinton and Rumsfeld feel that number is adequate(some hawks are asking for 40,000 more )we cannot continue to police the world's problems. The EU countries are in worse shape and lack our technology.
We probably need more like 2,000,000 troops to accomplish what our politicians talk about. North Korea and Iran each have larger standing armies than us. If we do not want to pay for a realistic army then we should shut our mouths in Washington and come home and at least guard our borders. It is ridiculous to guard the DMZ in Korea and leave our own borders insecure.