TexasCHLforum.com

KBCraig wrote: Exactly. I've yet to hear a rational defense of the strategy that says we must invade their countries and kill everyone who opposes us, until they stop hating us for invading their countries and killing everyone who opposes us.

1) I don't think that is the strategy. I think it is an exaggeration of the strategy. Military action is a part of it, in selected times and places that are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be advantageous to us.

....unfortunately for us part of the idea (of the militants) is that we're evil and want to spread our culture onto them. So invading their homeland and killing everyone justifies their beliefs and spreads them further.

2) As I said before, I think this mis-states the motives of the militants. On some level they might be irritated at what they see asa our ".....attempts to spread our culture onto them." But what they are engaged in is a long term effort to spread their culture onto us. Submit to Islamic rule or die. That is their goal.

And I'm quite sure they are glad to accept help from those of us who are willing to rationalize the idea that the best way for us to "resist" their efforts is to not fight back.

Appeasement was tried in the last century. It didn't work very well. In fact, there were some pretty spectacular failures. In my view, those who might advocate a version of it today have a heavy burden of proof to convince us why it might work this time.

Will938 wrote: The Europeans have their own political union, half the reason we became so involved globally was to protect them until they could establish such a network.

But no military forces to speak of. We certainly can't count on them on providing security for us, or even for being able to defend themselves.

Will938 wrote: Those who hold these beliefs will be dead in 100 years, and it will be their children's children in charge.

Yes. Children who have been taught to carry on the jihad in madrassas. Children who have been taught that Jews are monkeys and pigs.

Will938 wrote: The question no one can answer is how we're supposed to kill an idea. You can't until you kill everyone who believes it...unfortunately for us part of the idea is that we're evil and want to spread our culture onto them.

I think the main part of their idea is that we are evil and that they should spread their culture onto us.

Just look at what Islamic advocacy groups are doing in Europe right now, pushing for special rights for Muslims (to not be offended by what are common practices among non-Muslims) and advocating for matters involving Muslims to be settled under Sharia Law instead of the laws and courts of the country they are living in.

Will938 wrote: They aren't born with these ideas, its taught. Just like racism 50 years ago, might not be gone but it certainly is held only by a very small minority. And it only gets smaller.

The question might be how long can they keep the hate alive. But another question, just as important, is how much of our culture should we give up in attempts to appease them? Should we give up free speech? Artistic expression? Pork? What? And what if we give these things up and they STILL want to hate us and kill/conquor us?

Maybe if we all converted to Islam they might call off the jihad. Is that what we should do? And what do we do later on when some other group of violent lunatics starts attacking us in the name of some other religion?

Will938 wrote: I've already stated that the border recon could never be 100%, but it actually does something about our problem.

We agree on this. It solves part of the problem but not all.

Will938 wrote: As for them marshalling their strength, exactly what have they lost that prevents them from attacking here?

Designing, planning, and executing terror ops, especially large scale ones, is more difficult because they have to hide their activities more thoroughly. A large scale attack involves many people, and lots of planning and money. With phone lines being tapped as much as possible, and a willingness to go after the terrorists wherever they might be (that we know of), they have to keep their heads down.

No attacks since 9/11 is no accident.

Will938 wrote: What prevents them, right now, from bringing in several individuals to attack some mall in the middle of nowhere and terrifying us again? Fighting them over there certainly doesn't do it, they aren't short on manpower, money, or a good supply of Soviet weapons. Police work in the answer why they've been unsuccessful, because they HAVE tried to come back here back here and make attempts.

"Police work?" Do you mean "infringements" of the 2A? So you're agreeing with me that if anyone, felon, terrorist, LAC, insane person, could buy MP-5's out of vending machines and carry them anywhere, including on board airliners, no questions asked, it would be easier for terrorists to operate than it is now.

But I think the real answer is "all of the above." Police work and aggressive, sometimes pre-emptive tactics are all part of it.

What you're doing is taking what has been a successful strategy (in that it has prevented new attacks) and cherry picking parts of it that you don't like and asserting that they must not be having any effect.

Will938 wrote: Well, I can point out instances where we have been attacked, unsuccessfully. Usually by domestic terrorists, sometimes not. Point being that intel and upstanding citizens have foiled all of them, not the military. Fighting them over there might hinder their structure, but it only emboldens their beliefs with everyone...also we must recognize that there are parts of the organization we can't touch due to their location. Why would I give credit to our policies, that's a dangeorus proposition. If we did that then we assume we're doing the right thing, even if it is wrong. It also doesn't give any solid evidence as to why.

Well, you might give credit to our policies because there is at least a correlation between our policies and no attacks. The scientific method strives to find the simplest model that describes the data and allows for predictions. In this case, the simplest model is that the policies have, in their aggregate, prevented new attacks. Any other model, such as stipulating that this or that policy could be changed has a higher burden of proof of effectiveness because it necessarily involves speculation.

I can remember that right after 9/11, nearly everyone thought we would be attacked again in a few months. Did you? I did. It seemed to me that with all of the possible ways we could be attacked, that at least one of them could be pulled off.

But for some strange reason, we weren't. I wonder if any of President Bush's policies had anything to do with it?

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Let's agree that the idea of companies hiring Blackwater or "The People's Liberation Army Private Security Department" to provide security on the high seas is ludicrous, as is companies negotiating with foreign governments, or thinking wishfully that a bunch of lawyers, investment bankers, and insurance companies could provide such security.

In addition, before they take us on, our enemies will want to weaken us by weakening our economy. In fact, it is essential that they do so. They might try to do that by intimidating or even overwhelming countries that are important trading partners to us. These countries may be important to us and our economy, but also much smaller and weaker than us (hence easier targets). If we are hunkered down behind our borders, our enemies will have a free hand to do this.

Now some might say, "Why do we have to do it? How does Nevis-St. Kitts get by without being a global superpower with a big Navy and Air Force, and missiles, and all that?"

The answer is that Nevis-St. Kitts is stuck with being who and what they are. All they can do is hope that the powerful countries can maintain a certain order in the world that they can piggyback on. And if the big countries fail at that task, all they can do is hide out on their little islands and hope that no one notices they are there.

But we are not Nevis-St. Kitts. We are among a very small group of countries who have made the decision to take our destiny into our own hands, and who are large enough and powerful enough to make a credible effort at it. In this respect, we as a country share a certain philosophy with we as individual gun owners and CHLers. We are not willing to simply hope that some other country or countries (or hired help such as the police) take care of us. We have decided to take care of ourselves, for better or worse.

Many of us have different opinions as to how to best go about this. Some believe we should pull back to our borders and coasts. (And don't you guys forget about Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and all those Pacific Islands that we own and whose inhabitants are American citizens. Your border security/defense plans have to allow for their protection too.) Others believe that we should maintain a global presence and pursue our enemies, and the enemies of civilization itself, wherever they might try to set up or hide.

Different opinions, different philosophies.

That's why we have elections.

Will938 wrote: I don't see why the idea of private security on the high seas is ludacris. It happens all the time all over the world.

Example please. I'm especially interested in who would step forward to provide security for ships transiting The Straits of Hormuz. Whoever it is, they'd better have a heck of a Navy, a heck of an Air Force, and one whale of a logistics capability to keep all that hardware running, and the people involved eating and drinking. And they would also need an ability to protect that supply line stretching between wherever their base might be and wherever their forces are operating.

Will938 wrote: If I recall Shell Oil has a private army protecting it in Africa, tanks and all.

I think Shell hired some of the local government boys, who since then have been accused of wanton rape and slaughter. And I think this is all happening on dry land.

Will938 wrote: I still support the idea of the US cruising the seas and escorting merchants, but if they want to hire protection then I don't see the problem. IIRC Blackwater still has to operate under US law concerning who they contract with.

Not if they move their corporate HQ to China or Venezualea or some place like that.

Will938 wrote: Point out any group today working outside the realm of the foreign nation's laws capable of taking down one of our major trade partners. And how are they going to destroy us once they weaken our economy? Only governments are capable of doing this to us today.

Look at what the terror attacks on Spain did. They transformed a ally that had several thousand troops in Iraq into an essentially neutral country with zero troops in Iraq.

Once they weaken our economy over a period of time,we will no longer be able to afford the best and most modern military equipment and forces to successfully defend ourselves. So we won't have them. An enemy with a stronger economy could have 3 or 4 times as much stuff, and better stuff, than we have.

And yes, it would probably be an enemy government at that point.

Will938 wrote: And no, I didn't forget about Alaska or Hawaii, though admittedly I didn't consider our territories. Alaska particularly wouldn't be suited for that kind of coverage due to its huge area and small concentrations of people. It doesn't have but a few targets of interest and it isn't directly connected to the mainland so it isn't important to look after its borders as we would the continental US. No, they'd be better served by customs and border patrol with limited UAV coverage. As for Hawaii, it's so small that a huge increase in the Coast Guard is unnecessary, every other service is neglegable on the overall cost.

Alaska has huge oil reserves and the Alaska Pipeline. Obvious strategic targets. The pipeline is around 800+ miles long.

The guard force isn't only sized according to the size of the place being guarded. It must also be sized to withstand any potential attack at least until relief forces can be brought in from somewhere else.

This is the problem with a static defense. It has to be strong everywhere. The enemy can mass their forces because they only have to be strong at the point of attack.

But in real life it would never work out that way. A determined enemy would knock off all of the smaller and weaker countries first. Maybe some by political means, exploiting rot from within. Some could be brought down in coups or by civil wars. The method would simply be adapted to the terraine. (We are hunkered down behind our borders, remember, and not helping any of these countries. So they are on their own.) Then the enemy would use those countries' economies to wage economic war on us to greatly weaken our economy. Then when the balance of forces were overwhelmong in their favor, they would "make us an offer we couldn't refuse."

Will938 wrote: It all boils down to a few questions for me, all concerning 2008:

- What is the best way to stop real threats against us?

Opinions vary.

Will938 wrote: - With an unprotected border, how does the GWOT stop these threats from attacking?

The borders must be secured. But secured ot not, the GWOT makes them keep their heads down. No attacks since 9/11 cannot be dismissed as an accident.

Will938 wrote: - Once the border is protected, what does the GWOT net us, what do we lose by continuing it?

See above.

Will938 wrote: - What do we lose if we discontinue the GWOT?

The terrorists get a free hand to set up shop in some "friendly" other country and build/train their forces. Other countries would more easily agree to harbor them since they would not be concerned that we would come after them in turn.

This was the deal bin Laden had with Afganistan through the 90's. Both the Taliban and bin Laden were surprised that we went after them and drove them out. They thought that the most we would do was what Clinton did on the multiple occassions when we a were attacked during the 90's - lob a few cruise missiles over there and make an angry speech or two.

bin Laden might be hiding out in Pakistan now, but he is doing it without official government support. And he spends a lot of his time looking over his shoulder and listening for that faint whistling sound, hoping it doesn't get louder and louder.

Will938 wrote: - What do we gain/lose by attacking countries before any imminent threat has manifested?

Depends on the country and the situation.

Yes. I do disagree.

I have no problem with beefing up our border security. But I do not believe that a beefed up border + UAV's + a greatly expanded coast guard, etc. is the whole answer.

I believe that there are people who want to destroy us and our way of life (i.e. political freedom, individual rights, the rule of law, etc.) and substitute some version of Sharia Law,or possibly rule by the Central Committee of the Politburo of the People's Republic of China. And not only us but the Europeans as well, and everyone else on Earth. I also believe that these people tend to take a long view. If it takes 100 years that's OK with them.

Submit or die.

Hunkering down behind border security will allow these people to marshall their strength and attack, someday, at times and places of their choosing. And I do not believe they will choose times and places that will work out well for us. And I do not think that any border security could ever be air tight. So we would always be subject to being infiltrated by 9/11 style terrorists.

And as an aside, I do not agree that our current strategy and posture can be written off when explaining the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11. While it is hard to know for sure about what things might have been prevented by our pursuit and harrassment of the world's Al Qaeda types, (because they never happened) I think that any fair analysis has to give our current policies the benefit of the doubt and some amount of credit for us not being attacked.

Furthermore, while we could become self-sufficient in manufactured goods,(at great disruption to our economy) we will never become self sufficient with regard to basic natural resources. And not just energy, other resources as well that have no substitutes. So for our economy to thrive we must have a huge amount of trade with the rest of the world. Most of this trade will of necessity travel across the oceans.

Let's agree that the idea of companies hiring Blackwater or "The People's Liberation Army Private Security Department" to provide security on the high seas is ludicrous, as is companies negotiating with foreign governments, or thinking wishfully that a bunch of lawyers, investment bankers, and insurance companies could provide such security.

In addition, before they take us on, our enemies will want to weaken us by weakening our economy. In fact, it is essential that they do so. They might try to do that by intimidating or even overwhelming countries that are important trading partners to us. These countries may be important to us and our economy, but also much smaller and weaker than us (hence easier targets). If we are hunkered down behind our borders, our enemies will have a free hand to do this.

Now some might say, "Why do we have to do it? How does Nevis-St. Kitts get by without being a global superpower with a big Navy and Air Force, and missiles, and all that?"

The answer is that Nevis-St. Kitts is stuck with being who and what they are. All they can do is hope that the powerful countries can maintain a certain order in the world that they can piggyback on. And if the big countries fail at that task, all they can do is hide out on their little islands and hope that no one notices they are there.

But we are not Nevis-St. Kitts. We are among a very small group of countries who have made the decision to take our destiny into our own hands, and who are large enough and powerful enough to make a credible effort at it. In this respect, we as a country share a certain philosophy with we as individual gun owners and CHLers. We are not willing to simply hope that some other country or countries (or hired help such as the police) take care of us. We have decided to take care of ourselves, for better or worse.

Many of us have different opinions as to how to best go about this. Some believe we should pull back to our borders and coasts. (And don't you guys forget about Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and all those Pacific Islands that we own and whose inhabitants are American citizens. Your border security/defense plans have to allow for their protection too.) Others believe that we should maintain a global presence and pursue our enemies, and the enemies of civilization itself, wherever they might try to set up or hide.

Different opinions, different philosophies.

That's why we have elections.

yerasimos wrote: However, I reckon walking into other people’s deadly fights (or starting your own) is a much higher-percentage method to pursue an early demise than minding your own business.

All you're doing is citing a difference in policy. That's why we have elections. Paul has his view, and others have theirs. So far, he can't crack double digits. So on current evidence, he isn't winning many people over.

yerasimos wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote: It's OK to assert that we should pull back to our borders, but you can't automatically assume (or expect others to assume) that doing so will enhance our ability to defend ourselves. It could easily do just the opposite.

Military pullback will allow us to regroup and prepare to repel whatever they might try to throw at us, or even allow the Islamocultists to self-extinguish with less collateral damage.

We don't need to regroup. Al Qaeda and our other militant Islamic enemies are the ones who need to regroup, because of the way we've been hounding them and killing them wherever we can find them. Hunkering down behind our borders will allow Al Qaeda, or any other enemy, the time and space they need to regroup and to build their strength while remaining completely unmolested.

Sounds to me like that makes them better off.

Not to say that border security isn't important. It surely is. But it is just one component of an overall security package.

Static defenses are almost never successful. The fundamental problem is that they give the enemy free reign to prepare to whatever extent they choose. And the longer one goes without being attacked, the more the political support for building up and/or maintaining the static defense evaporates. In the end, the static defense is usually overwhelmed by a massed attack at the time and place of the enemy's choosing.

We need to secure our borders AND go after the Islamic militants where they live, wherever we can.

And these are all merely policy differences. Paul has his policy preferences, and he can't crack double digits with them, even with all the money he has managed to raise.

yerasimos wrote: Protecting commerce can be accomplished more effectively and efficiently closer to our own borders, possibly involving a much smaller, non-military footprint overseas, and via the private sector.

Such a radical assertion requires far more evidence than simply theory.

Then there is this little item.

Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

.........

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

Article 2, Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law:

Strange to find supporters of Ron Paul advocating privatizing government functions (raising and maintaining armed forces, conducting relations with other nations) that are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

I happen to think we are much better off being able to vote for the people who do these things than if they were "privatized". If some company messes up with its hired security and/or relations with some other country, they will attack all of us, not just the stockholders.

You don't agree, but it seems mainly because you don't agree with the policy choices we have made. That's why we have elections. Those who may share your view are not winning them. In fact, I don't even know of any who are running, including Paul.

No matter who gets elected, we are not going to sell off 75% of our military to Exxon, Blackwater, or anyone else (The Chinese for instance? They are pretty flush with cash these days. I'll bet they'd love to by a few F-22 Raptors, Aegis class boats, or nuclear attack subs. Does Ron Paul advocate that we sell such weapons to "private" Chinese companies? Do you?) and tell them to make their own private arrangements for secure access to trade. If anyone ran on that platform, it is likely that their own mother wouldn't vote for them.

yerasimos wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:No one familiar with the history of the last 100 years would ever seriously perceive us as, "...war-frenzied conquerors-in-waiting." The very notion is preposterous. We have liberated more people from tyranny and rescued more people from genocide than all the other nations that have ever existed put together.

Can I assume that Britain, France, and the former Soviet Union were our biggest liberations/rescues in the twentieth century? Millions of their young men (and thousands of ours) were slaughtered in the process of “rescuing� those nations. We shut down the Nazis’ death camps after they had already murdered about 12 million people, but did not/could not prevent “Uncle Joe� Stalin from starving..............

I would say we liberated all of Europe and the peoples of the Soviet Union, Japan, and quite a bit of Asia by means of winning WW2 and the Cold War. Now it may be that these results prove not to be permanent, but I'll bet it still makes a heck of a difference to those alive now. And to say that "millions of their young men were slaughtered" in the liberation effort almost sounds like you're saying that it would have been better for them to have continued to live under tyranny and genocide indefinitely. Hitler and Tojo (and yes, Stalin too) were slaughtering people on a pretty massive scale whether we intervened or not.

But it seems that you (reluctantly) agree we liberated more people than all the other nations of the Earth put together since the beginning of time, but complain that we were not able to liberate and/or save everybody. I agree. We are not perfect, and our power was and is not infinite.

But we still did more than all other countries put together. And that's a far cry from fitting your characterization of us as, "..war- frenzied conquorers in waiting".

yerasimos wrote: Whatever sympathy from other countries we may have temporarily enjoyed after 11 Sep 2001, or goodwill in remembrance for assistance in years past, evaporated completely and was deeply tarnished once the United States preemptively invaded Iraq ......

Maybe it didn't so much "evaporate" as be destroyed by a concerted "Big Lie" propaganda campaign orchestrated by our enemies and helped by an unwitting Hate America First Left.

yerasimos wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So you would have companies like Blackwater deploy carrier battle groups, combat infantry divisions, etc., which would then be hired by Exxon to secure access to oil markets? (By that I mostly mean guaranteeing free passage on the seas.) ?

Blackwater and Exxon would have to figure out what they can afford and what they want to pay for. Last I checked, Exxon was doing pretty well.

Leaving the government's constitutional powers and duties aside, what would you do if Exxon and Blackwater used their private military power in ways that you don't like? What if Exxon causes some other country to attack us, all of us?

Admittedly, our government can mess up like that too, but at least we get to vote them out if we think they have screwed up too badly. Even during WW2, FDR and the whole government had to stand for election several times.

yerasimos wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:And you think that if we did operate like that "American taxpayers" would get some kind of a break? Where will Exxon and Blackwater get the money to acquire all that stuff?

Blackwater and Exxon probably have their insurance companies and bond underwriters on speed-dial. Let those guys figure it out. It is their business, not mine--except when they try to nurse upon a public nipple that is effectively filled under duress by you and me.

If some country attacks us it is our business. They aren't going to limit their attacks to Exxon's bond underwriters.

And you're not going to get anywhere taking the attacking country to court.

But again, this is all just a smokescreen. You don't like the policy, and you can't win an election to change it. So instead, we get these radical proposals to "privatize" and even "outsource" foreign and military policy.

Do you think any country would make any kind of deal or agreement with our government (who, remember, has constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations) if they knew that Exxon had a half a dozen carrier battle groups and x-number of nuclear attack subs, air wings, and infantry divisions at their disposal (on retainer as it were) that they could do with as they pleased? What good would our government's word be? They'd want Exxon to sign off on the deal if they had a half a brain.

And who votes for the leaders of Exxon? (Yeah, I know, the stockholders. So Joe Gazillionaire gets a gazillion votes, and I get 100 votes. Sound fair to you, when the decisions may involve life and death for you and your family?) Corporate elections are usually won on the votes of a handful of very large shareholders. It's a far cry from "one man one vote".

I want to see Ron Paul advocate for a system like you are describing.

yerasimos wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Or might the people who use oil (i.e. all of us) have to pay the bill?

This would be much more straightforward, instead of running the costs through the government filter. I reckon it would be much more efficient overall.

".......to provide for the common defense....."

yerasimos wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote: And why single out oil? Shouldn't any company engaging in foreign commerce have to hire its own security?

Either that, or subcontract it to foreign companies. As I see it, the US government only has a mandate to secure and enforce property rights within the United States, not to police the world.

You may see it that way. But I see it as, "...to provide for the common defense..." You don't like how we are doing it, and can't win an election to change how we are doing it, so you would have private companies outsource it to (probably) Chinese subcontractors.

What if the subcontractor Exxon chooses is an enterprise of the People's Liberation Army?

yerasimos wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:For the last few thousand years, governments have assumed the job of providing security for their citizens. Indeed, that is pretty much their most important function.

If so, why bother with a CHL if the government is supposed to provide security for you?

"....to provide for the common defense....." CHL's have nothing to do with it.

yerasimos wrote: Exxon would only have a mandate (via its owners/shareholders) to secure its own property.

How do you know what Joe Gazzilionaire, voting his gazillion share block, might get it in his head to do?

yerasimos wrote: If guys with Exxon/Saudi Aramco/etc uniforms and badges screw up (instead of people wearing our national flag on their shoulders), any blowback is more likely to be contained to just Exxon/Saudi Aramco/etc. Furthermore, the scale of their mistakes would likely be much smaller as opposed to swarming a whole country with foreign (as perceived by the other country) military personnel.

How could you possibly know any of this?

But hey, you could always run for office on that platform. And, getting back to topic, is that Paul's platform? If so, he is being real quiet about it. And if he ever goes public with it, people will be asking the question, "If Ron Paul falls over in a forest and there is no one around to hear it, did it really make a sound?"

yerasimos wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:And if it is thought that other countries are sometimes troubled by the way we deploy and/or use our military now, how might they regard us if Exxon were making those decisions instead of our government? Why would that automatically be better?

The scale of blowback-inspiring damage Exxon could do is much more constrained (via the bond market, stock market, shareholder voting, etc) than the scale of such damage the government can do.

And if some country or terrorist group doesn't give a fig about the bond market and just wants to wipe Exxon and all the rest of us off the face of the Earth, we could just meet them head on with a phalanx of investment bankers, right?

It's one thing to say our current foreign policy is wrong, or that the Iraq war is a mistake. Paul apparently holds these views and that's fine. He is going before the voters and he will get whatever results he gets.

But to go from there to the idea that having private companies provide for their own security on the high seas and negotiate relations with other countries themselves will somehow give "the taxpayer" a break or will intrinsically produce better policy (for America and Americans) is a huge leap. Especially when the leaders of those companies are chosen through a "one billionaire, one billion votes" type of process.

Does anyone think that George Soros, a big financial supporter of many left wing anti gun groups BTW, would (or does) make decisions based on what is best for America?

Anyway, I amused myself for an hour or so writing this stuff. But I think I've pretty much said my peace at this point.

yerasimos wrote: I consider Islam to be a destructive force, not only to its neighbors but its practioners; better to be an uninvolved, distant observer than to play hero.

It's not playing hero. We have national interests, and sometimes our country and another have mutual interests. So the question becomes whether we want to give the crazies veto power over actions we may take that we believe to be in our national interest.

And you can't just assume that we could be an "uninvolved, distant observer... ", even if we tried, and that the crazies would leave us alone if we did. You say that they would then have no reason to attack us, but how can you really know? Maybe they will think up some reason that hasn't occurred to any of us at the moment.

yerasimos wrote: Without a foreign occupier to unite against, all of the various Islamic factions will turn on each other and weaken themselves, and present less of a threat to us.

Again, you are taking for granted their definition of "occupier". To them, we were "occupying' Saudi Arabia when the actual government of that land (whatever you or they might think of its legitimacy) had invited us in for reasons of mutual interests. The crazies don't get to define the terms.

yerasimos wrote: A closer analogy is to pretend for the sake of argument that a neighbor, who you do not know very well, invites you into his home and asks you to help him with his problems, and you naively accept his invitation. Once you arrive at his home, you learn that his psychotic mistresses, spouse and children think you should not be visiting their home, and they start attacking you. In that case you would do well to defend yourself as best you can while getting out of hostile territory as quickly as possible, and never going back there again.

Maybe. Or maybe not. One might decide that the neighbor is worthy of help in spite of the added risk. Or the psycho mistress etc. might follow you home and attack/threaten you with unlawful deadly force. So you might have to use deadly force to defend yourself and, after stopping the attack, the attackers may succumb to their injuries.

Analogies can be taken to extremes. And doing so tends to make them less applicable.

yerasimos wrote: We will be able to defend ourselves much more effectively if we mind our own turf and focus on defending our own borders, instead of dissipating money, lives and materiel on foreign soil.

Again, maybe, and maybe not. The French tried something like that with the Maginot Line as I recall. It didn't work. They would have been much better off if they had "pre-empted" Hitler's buildup before he could gather strength.

It's OK to assert that we should pull back to our borders, but you can't automatically assume (or expect others to assume) that doing so will enhance our ability to defend ourselves. It could easily do just the opposite. I can list a number of possible reasons why. One is that it allows enemies to gather their strength and attack at a time and place of their choosing. Another is that our economy requires trade, which means that goods and services have to move in commerce. Without security, our ability to trade would be limited and/or damaged, thus weakening our economy. A weakened (i.e. smaller) economy has fewer resources available to devote to defense.

This is just off the top of my head.

yerasimos wrote: Furthermore, we would be able to negotiate more effectively with other countries wrt missle defense installations (assuming such things are necessary and must be located on foreign lands) if they did not perceive us as war-frenzied conquerors-in-waiting.

No one familiar with the history of the last 100 years would ever seriously perceive us as, "...war-frenzied conquerors-in-waiting." The very notion is preposterous. We have liberated more people from tyranny and rescued more people from genocide than all the other nations that have ever existed put together.

If some crazies think otherwise, it's their problem not ours. If they think otherwise and attack us, we should kill them until there are no more of them left.

yerasimos wrote: I do not believe for a moment that Islamic thugs are just misunderstood and really desperately seeking tender moments of caring and sharing with us. At the same time, we do not need to bomb them into oblivion when they are perfectly capable of and predisposed toward destroying each other if left alone.

Not yet anyway.

yerasimos wrote: Finally, with oil at $100/barrel, I believe the oil majors (both private multinationals and state-owned players) ought to pay the full cost of securing their oil with private security contractors, and not shrug this responsibility onto American taxpayers and buyers of US government debt while their friends in Washington try to pass off the military operations as trying to find WMDs, spreading democracy, or humanitarian relief, or whatever bogus excuse they come up with. Our involvement in the sandbox is just a massive, fraudulent racket that should be stopped immediately.

Well, there we have it. It always comes down to that, right? Bush lied, people died, and if we didn't support Isreal they wouldn't hate us........

When I hear this it always makes me think that it should be the crazies that should be worrying that we might hate them, if they don't stop attacking us, and what could happen to them if we did.

So you would have companies like Blackwater deploy carrier battle groups, combat infantry divisions, etc., which would then be hired by Exxon to secure access to oil markets? (By that I mostly mean guaranteeing free passage on the seas.) And you think that if we did operate like that "American taxpayers" would get some kind of a break? Where will Exxon and Blackwater get the money to acquire all that stuff? Is it going to fall out of the sky? Or might the people who use oil (i.e. all of us) have to pay the bill?

And why single out oil? Shouldn't any company engaging in foreign commerce have to hire its own security?

The idea of making oil companies, for instance, 'pay their own way' as regards security ignores the fundamental fact that companies don't "pay" anything. Their customers are the ones who do the paying.

For the last few thousand years, governments have assumed the job of providing security for their citizens. Indeed, that is pretty much their most important function. To do it, taxes are levied and collected. Military forces are established, etc. These forces may be used wisely or foolishly. That's why we have elections. The elected government determines how, whether, and when the forces are used, for better or worse.

Why should we assume we would be better off if Exxon were making those decisions instead? Who elects them?

And in either case, the cost is the same. Either the company collects the money from everybody that uses oil (i.e. everybody), or the government collects the money from everybody who pays taxes (i.e. everybody).

And if it is thought that other countries are sometimes troubled by the way we deploy and/or use our military now, how might they regard us if Exxon were making those decisions instead of our government? Why would that automatically be better?

KBCraig wrote: They might hate us for that reason, [because we are a Christian Nation] but they attacked us because our forces are stationed in the land of Mecca, and occupying neighboring Arab lands.

Sure. But let's not lose sight of the fact that the recognized government of "the land of Mecca" invited us to put a base there.

So we're not supposed to make deals with the governments of other countries without first checking if it's OK with every flea-bitten group of murderous whack jobs on the planet first?

KBCraig wrote: Rudy Giuliani said he'd "never heard anything so preposterous", which meant he's never read the 9/11 Commission Report, nor the writings of the Michael Scheuer, the former Chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden desk.

I think that Rudy was just expressing a similar thought to what I just said above only in classier language.

KBCraig wrote: International relations are not fundamentally different from personal relationships. If you kick down your neighbor's door, set up camp in their living room, and announce you're there to solve their domestic problems, you should expect some resistance.

But if my neighbor invites me in and asks me to help him with his problems, and some murderous lunatic from down the street decides that I shouldn't do that, for some sick reason he manufactured in his own mind, that's a different story.

And if that murderous sicko decides to attack me because he doesn't like what I may be doing for my neighbor, should I then conclude I was wrong to respond to my neighbor's invitation? Should I not make an agreement with another person because some crazy violent psycho might not like it?

That's no way to live.

KBCraig wrote: Too many Americans are so abysmally ignorant of history,...

Agreed.

KBCraig wrote: .....that they have no idea that we've been camped out in other people's living rooms for over a century. And those "other people" are not ignorant of history; history is the basis of their culture and their religion, and the most ignorant goatherd among them can recite his bloodline, and all offenses against his ancestors, going back 600+ years.

And if they are going to blame us, and attack us, for acts committed by people who have been dead for hundreds of years, then it says here that we should aggressively defend ourselves until not a single one of those murderous psychos remains alive on this planet.

If they don't like it, maybe they should re-think their centuries-long fixation on blood lust.

So that's the basic problem I have with Paul's philosophy as to foreign policy and relations among nations.

Paul's message about smaller government is threating to almost any politician out there.....

Ummm, sort of. But there's more to it than that. See below.

...... and it scares the daylights out of them because people are taking the message seriously.

I don't see where his political rivals are scared, nor do I see where any significant % of voters is taking his message seriously. His numbers hang in single digits for the most part.

That's why his rivals are not scared.

As for his message, I suspect that most people are not aware of most of the details.

He certainly is in favor of smaller government. Much smaller government. (I am too to some extent.) But the thing that many people overlook is that each and every federal agency, department, and program that he wants to drastically cut back or eliminate has its own constituency. Right or wrong, it's a fact. And each one of these constituencies (farmers, labor, business, teachers, you name it) consist of people who will vote against Paul because, if nothing else, he threatens their government meal ticket.

Add them all up and there are too many of them for Paul to make a serious run at the presidency, at least IMO.

His political rivals are well aware of all this. So they are not too worried about him being a threat.

As to the sources of all the various charges being levied against him, I couldn't say. But as far as I can tell, most of his opponents for the Republican nomination don't say much about him either way.