Former Reagan Ambassador: Conservatives Must Redefine Their Foreign Policy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Oct 15, 2009.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Former Reagan Ambassador Faith Whittlesey rejects the Bipartisan Beltway Hot-Tub Crowd of Corruptos and tells the truth about conservatives and war:
    “We conservatives must redefine our foreign policy in accordance with the prudence and caution of our Founding Fathers. As John Adams said, “We do not go abroad in search for monsters to destroy.” We should reread the history of empires that lost blood and treasure in foreign wars. The U.S. military and homeland security budgets consume resources that America can no longer afford to expend on arguably imprudent and utopian missions to remake other governments and cultures. Most Americans do not wish to be seen by the world as empire builders.”
    Whittlesey, who was the highest-ranking woman in Reagan’s White House in between diplomatic assignments in Switzerland, already rankled the Neocon TroughDwellers Union when she reminded them that Ronald Reagan would never have invaded Iraq. But the neocons have ample funds and a bipartisan lapdog power base in Congress, so it’s unlikely that the GOP will heed Whittlesey’s call and come to its senses. Of course, comfortably ensconced in their dream-world (a.k.a. our long national nightmare), the trough-dwellers don’t care who’s in power, as long as they keep raking in the dough.

    - www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/39937.html
     
  2. christianyouth

    christianyouth
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    1
    While I agree with what the Founding Fathers had to say on foreign policy, I also know that the generals often foresee conflicts and make strategic moves to protect the country. I remember reading in American Caesar, the biography of MacArthur, of how generals were predicting war with Japan prior to WW1 and that was one of the reasons for securing a hold in the Philippines--a move that came under brutal attack from the peace-loving journalistic establishment.

    Because it looked like American Imperialism, right? But it wasn't. It was a strategic move that greatly improved our ability to fight the Japs in WW2.

    What if the foreign policy of the 'conservatives' is similar? What if Vietnam was for a strategic purpose, say the prevention of an ultra-powerful communist state combining China, Vietnam, and Korea? What if Iraq has similar strategic importance?

    As regular civilians, we don't know. We aren't privy to all of the information that the generals have, and most of us do not believe in that old thing called the balance of powers.

    We just can't judge foreign policy decisions while they are happening, many times. We know that the cause of war that we proposed was false, i.e. fighting the war on terror, but we don't know if the action will be revealed to be good in the future. I have some predictions that there will be a war with China in about 30 years, and some academics also foresee that--could it be that our foreign policy makers see that and are acting accordingly? After all, they knew there would be conflict with Japan 40 years before there actually was.

    So, if there were other countries that had strong commitments to freedom and could pick up the slack, I would say the US could step down and return to economy building, but with a country that has no freedom of the press--and thus can invent causes of war at a whim-- and that is establishing 'cultural centers' all through Africa(essentially working to colonize Africa--has stationed troops in Africa as well) showing it's imperialistic ambitions--we need to trust our generals and the decisions they make.

    Mencken was proved wrong by WW2, Chomsky was proved wrong by the revelations of Communist brutality and disregard for human life, and I think the American media establishment is going to be proved wrong once China goes ballistic--it's coming.
     
  3. alatide

    alatide
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Messages:
    974
    Likes Received:
    0
    My major question is why should we shoulder the burden for keeping the world safe? We need to re-establish good relations with our allies which suffered greatly during the previous administration and let the UK, Germany, Japan, etc. pay their own way.

    The idea that the US should remain the supreme power in the world is unsustainable in light of the current world wide economic situation. We're going to drive our economy into the ground if we try to maintain this situation and go the way of the Soviet Union.
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The generals are answerable to the civilian leadership which is answerable to us, the citizens, in this country.

    If something needs to be done then it must be communicated to the us, the citizens. If we say no, then it should not be done.
     
  5. christianyouth

    christianyouth
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    1
    That's a good point. Our allies have interests to protect as well.

    And you can't avoid the point that our economy cannot sustain this type of military spending.

    Good points.
     
  6. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why isn't military spending considered to be an economic stimulus like the trillion dollar stimulus bill?
     
  7. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,928
    Likes Received:
    296
    Her version of the "truth", at any rate.

    As interpreted by the famously unbiased Lew Rockwell, of course.
     
    #7 carpro, Oct 19, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 19, 2009
  8. christianyouth

    christianyouth
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    1
    Haha... point taken!
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, what's your point? If you know of any unbiased sources of opinion, please share them with the forum. Thank you.
     
  10. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,928
    Likes Received:
    296
    I love it when libertarians and liberals try to tell republicans how to be republicans.

    The unbiased Mr. Rockwell would never have repeated what she said unless it agreed with his agenda.

    Neither would you.
     
  11. Nonsequitur

    Nonsequitur
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    637
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  12. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ya think???????????

    When is the last time that you made a comment that you didn't agree with?
     
  13. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,928
    Likes Received:
    296
    Nope.

    I know.

    Then there's this...libertarians have been around for awhile. If their policies were so popular, they'd have made more progress than they have.

    Instead, they're going the other direction. Less relevant every year, it seems. And they want to tell conservatives how to be conservatives?

    It seems they need some guidance on how to be libertarians. Or at least how to be relevant. Sniping isn't it.
     
    #13 carpro, Oct 20, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 20, 2009
  14. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    It's about time somebody told them.
     
  15. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    And we are becoming losing our freedom - less each year, it seems.

    And socialism and big government grows each year, it seems.

    "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism...The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is...But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path." - Ronald Reagan(http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan)
     
    #15 KenH, Oct 20, 2009
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2009
  16. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because most people who do not think through issues cannot see the value of freedom for itself and only think of how a central elite can rid the world of evil and make everything "fair."

    Also, if most the media is controlled by centrists and centrists have crept into the government, they do not like to give up their power and control very easily.
     
  17. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    We do need to ask the question of what we are morally obligated to do and what we are actually capable of doing. Remember during the Clinton administration, Bill Clinton was harping about Milošević being the next Hitler. Conservative commentator Sean Hannity strongly criticized Clinton's push into Kosovo and said that Serbian conflict was not something in which the U.S. should be involved. He mentioned that soldiers would be coming home in body bags for something that would essentially be for naught. The overwhelming majority of Republican politicians, conservative commentators, and other conservative Americans agreed wholeheartedly.

    Do you agree with Hannity (then) or do you agree with Clinton (then) that the U.S. military had a moral obligation to intervene in the Serbian conflict and stop the moral injustice there? Do you believe that the U.S. government has the obligation and the duty to bypass the governments of all other nations and tell them how to run their governments and intervene in any conflicts? Does this obligation extend to anything including African tribal warfare? What is your criteria for determining what the U.S. military should or should not be involved in? Do you believe we have the persistent capability to do all of whatever you believe we should do?

    Well, if we don't have enough money to actually help, what are we supposed to do? I want the U.S. to remain the world's superpower, but it cannot do so by overextending itself and destroying its own currency through inflation. The Bretton Woods system should have taught us that we can only remain strong through thrift, conservation, and honesty.

    I think he means that, like the Soviet Union who thought that it had to control the world and ultimately collapsed for economic reasons from an overextended military and overextended welfare system, the U.S. may be on the same path.
     
  18. NiteShift

    NiteShift
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    The country was tired of Bush & war, the Republicans wound up with a weak candidate in John McCain, and Obama sounded like he knew what he was talking about. That pretty much sums up the election.

    Rockwell spent the last 8 years endorsing truthers, warning that Bush was going to herd the true patriots into concentration camps, that he planned to detonate nukes off the eastern seaboard, and was going to nuke Iran. Enuff said.
     
  19. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) Any proof to back up your assertion????

    2) Any proof to back up your assertion????

    3) Any proof to back up your assertion????

    4) I don't know about actually using nuclear weapons but if one read various opinion columns lots people thought(and agreed with the idea) that President Bush would have conventionally bombed Iran if he thought he could have gotten around the consequences of doing so - such as $200/bbl. oil or higher.
     
  20. NiteShift

    NiteShift
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    0

    March 16, 2006 on LewRockwell.com -

    "It is obvious that Bush intends to attack Iran and that he will use every means to bring war about...Yet, Bush has no conventional means of waging war with Iran. His bloodthirsty neoconservatives have prepared plans for nuking Iran….a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a US port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized…."

    Oct 1, 2005 on LewRockwell.com -

    "…the Bush administration is moving toward initiating two more wars, one with Iran and one with North Korea. With no US troops available, the Bush administration is revamping US war doctrine to allow for preventative nuclear attack. In short, the Bush administration is planning to make the US the first country in history to initiate war with nuclear weapons…The goal of the Bush administration is to attack Iran"

    February 25, 2006 on LewRockwell.com -

    "We now read of Halliburton awarded a $350 million contract to build detention camps in the United States. Bush says you are with me or against me. Rumsfeld and Cheney already speak of enemies of the regime."


    Truther stuff was here - http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
    – but has since gone away. Though I will admit that he has featured debunkers as well.
     

Share This Page

Loading...