My newest column (foreign policy)

[RickN]

This:

"The United States is despised by some in the world for a simple reason. It is not because they "hate our freedom" as George W. Bush often stated, but because we have invaded their countries and killed their brothers. We have funded the bombers that blew up their families or the drones that inflicted "collateral damage" upon their nations. Moderate Muslims are turned into radicals and jihadists by the involvement of U.S. troops and drones in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen."

... seems to be a common thread of late amongst predominantly younger people, most who have never been outside of their own state, let alone this country.

I've been around the world and the United States is not despised as much as those pundits who argue the point would have you believe. It's very popular to televise American effigy and flag burning; much more so than the incredible amount of good things that we do, buildings we raise, lives we save, mouths we feed, medicines we distribute, etc...

I've been welcomed with open arms and bottles of champange (literally) by those who felt the good that American's do in both humanitarian aid and in combating those who kill and opress the weak. I'm a Marine who wears both a Humanitarian Service Medal AND a Combat Action Ribbon... I know first hand both sides of our efforts in this regard.

Certainly the force we have used and continue to use against the likes of the Taliban and others are not without equal and opposite reactions amongst those involved in or assocated with those enemies. I'm sure the brother of a Taliban fighter hates Americans because we killed his kin. I'm positive that Saddam and his army didn't care for us. Personally, I think having killers, dictators, terrorists, tyrants and their minions as enemies is the way it ought to be...

I'll concede that we spend a ton of money on defense to support all of these actions and more. I'd rather we didn't, but using the argument that we have to stop killing killers or they will hate us is just silly justification for it. More than anything, I'd like to see every single one of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines come home without a scratch, but their cause is just and their actions and intentions are true.

There are all kinds of reasons to argue against American foreign policy, but the trend to blame some imaginary worldwide hatred that we caused on it is IMHO, a non-starter.

Of course... that's just my opinion though. I could be wrong.

Very well said and accurate from what I have seen. I do some business in the mid-east and have several friends there, we are not nearly as hated as some would have you believe.

 

[3inSlugger]

The United States has no moral obligation.
As a private citizen, you have every right to help a brother out if he's getting beaten up. Of course you're only risking your own ass. These politicians risk OUR money and OUR lives for their supposedly righteous wars.

 

[tRidiot]

So we should attack them now so they can't close it? We've proven that Iran can't effectively close the straight before, so I see no reason to do anything but tell them to jump if they feel froggy!

Not at all... I was pointing out you were against attacking other nations without provocation, so I wanted to know your opinion on that particular situation. A lot of people seem to think that Iran will attempt to close the straight in response to economic sanctions and I wondered if you thought that would be a provocation worth a military response. You said it should be on a case by case basis, and since that seems the most likely event in the near future of such a high magnitude, it sparked my interest. I am in no way suggesting we should attack Iran or invade their borders based on anything that has occurred so far. But many indicators point toward such an event, based on escalating tensions and rhetoric, on both sides.

If we could drill in our own country without crippling government interference (some of which is justified, perhaps), then the Straight of Hormuz wouldn't seem like such an important spot to the US.

 

[Glocktogo]

Not at all... I was pointing out you were against attacking other nations without provocation, so I wanted to know your opinion on that particular situation. A lot of people seem to think that Iran will attempt to close the straight in response to economic sanctions and I wondered if you thought that would be a provocation worth a military response. You said it should be on a case by case basis, and since that seems the most likely event in the near future of such a high magnitude, it sparked my interest. I am in no way suggesting we should attack Iran or invade their borders based on anything that has occurred so far. But many indicators point toward such an event, based on escalating tensions and rhetoric, on both sides.

If we could drill in our own country without crippling government interference (some of which is justified, perhaps), then the Straight of Hormuz wouldn't seem like such an important spot to the US.

In that instance, it would have a direct impact on our country. It would be within our rights under maritime law to unblock it. If the Iranian's attempted to repel our right to a navigable waterway, well they'll get what they deserve.

I see no reason to withdraw from the international stage at all, merely that we should attempt to mirror in our actions the rhetoric we preach.

 

[sanjuro893]

The United States has no moral obligation.
As a private citizen, you have every right to help a brother out if he's getting beaten up. Of course you're only risking your own ass. These politicians risk OUR money and OUR lives for their supposedly righteous wars.

You're absolutely right. Except for one tiny little detail. Soldiers risk THEIR lives. They VOLUNTEER to do it so that you can armchair quarterback from the safety of a college campus. So unless you're fresh from service yourself or plan to after college, I ask that you think twice before tossing around words like "risk our lives" until you've done it. I think I'm done with this discussion.

 

[MaddSkillz]

we don't even want them ringing the doorbell. ron paul would be trounced on by nations waiting for us to scale back

So we ring theirs constantly. It's naive to assume this has zero impact on us here.

 

[MaddSkillz]

The United States has no moral obligation.
As a private citizen, you have every right to help a brother out if he's getting beaten up. Of course you're only risking your own ass. These politicians risk OUR money and OUR lives for their supposedly righteous wars.

Trudat!

 

[MaddSkillz]

You're absolutely right. Except for one tiny little detail. Soldiers risk THEIR lives. They VOLUNTEER to do it so that you can armchair quarterback from the safety of a college campus. So unless you're fresh from service yourself or plan to after college, I ask that you think twice before tossing around words like "risk our lives" until you've done it. I think I'm done with this discussion.

It's a job. They get paid for it. And living in a country who's military industrial complex spends more on war and "defense" than any other country, it's a good choice if you're in need of a job. And I can guarantee-damn-tee you, with the current economy the way it is, that's the primary reason many pursue a career in the military.

 

[Glocktogo]

It's a job. They get paid for it. And living in a country who's military industrial complex spends more on war and "defense" than any other country, it's a good choice if you're in need of a job. And I can guarantee-damn-tee you, with the current economy the way it is, that's the primary reason many pursue a career in the military.

That still doesn't give ANYONE the right to marginalize the value of their lives, be it a politician or a money master.

 

[MaddSkillz]

That still doesn't give ANYONE the right to marginalize the value of their lives, be it a politician or a money master.

Nope, or to marginalize the value of anyone's life... For example, those that don't serve in the military.