Excerpt from a Pat Buchanan speech March 25, 2000


Because of our sanctions on scores of nations, cruise missile strikes upon others, and intervention in the internal affairs of still others in the wake of the Cold War, a seething resentment of America is brewing all over the world. And the haughty attitude of our foreign policy elite only nurses the hatred.

Hearken, if you will, to the voice of our own Xenia, Madeline Albright, announcing new air strikes on Iraq: "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future."


Now I count myself an American patriot. But if this Beltway braggadocio about being the world's "indispensable nation" has begun to grate on me, how must it grate upon the Europeans, Russians, and peoples subject to our sanctions because they have failed, by our lights, to live up to our standards?


And how can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution? Recall: it was in retaliation for the bombing of Libya that Khadafi's agents blew up Pan Am 103. And it is said to have been in retaliation for the Vincennes' accidental shoot-down of that Iranian airliner that Teheran collaborated with terrorists to blow up the Khobar towers. From Pan Am 103, to the World Trade Center, to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar - have we not suffered enough not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the asking price of empire?


America today faces a choice of destinies. We can be the peacemaker of the world - or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle. Let us use this transitory moment of American power and preeminence to encourage and assist old friends and allies to stand on their own feet and provide and pay for their own defense (end of quotes)

Sadly when our bi-partisan interventionist policies did lead to, as Pat foresaw, a "atrocity on U.S. soil" our answer was not less intervention, it was more.

Is it time to let the rest of the world take care of themselves? Does our numerous military interventions worldwide diminish or increase our security?

Yes. America should be relegated to protecting itself and its allies, and not acting as the world's policemen simply because it's bigger than everyone else. Imagine, if you will, if Germany had invaded Iraq in America's stead. The world would never let them.

I still see no evidence Saddam posed a threat to the U.S.

As for "liberating" the people of Iraq; I don't believe democracy can be instituted by force on a country unless the force comes internally, as in - but not limited to -the case of a civil war. I believe democracy requires the people of a country to realise its worth as a vital part of a nation's growth.



Depends upon the intervention. As for the Iraq war; what a beautiful piece of irony closing the Statue of Liberty was.


If this is somewhat vague and incoherent, I apologise. Insomnia is awful.

Great Post Hugo. I am a Democrat but I like what Pat Bu. has to say on many issues.

For 60 years the Military Industrial Complex had the Cold War as an excuse for spending billions and billions on the Military and the toys of war, then came the end of the Soviet Empire, cut back on spending and the whole Complex was in a downward spin. Then 911 comes along and they are back in business, this time they will not let it end, we are at Perpetual War. Perpetual Spending, Perpetual debt and half the country duped to believe all this is necessary for National Defense.

What is even more disturbing is the very people who should have prevented such an attack as 911 from happening, the Military, CIA, FBI ,NSA, and even the Presidents Cabinet, have been excused of their neglect, not one head has rolled for this outrages disaster, fact is we are rewarding them, by closing our eyes to this failure as though it just happened and was not preventable, hmm 350 Billion for National Security each year, year in and year out, and 911 was not preventable. Where is our money going .

While I believe it is possible, with 20/20 hindsight, to say 9/11 was preventable; I also believe it is impossible to prevent all terrorist attacks against a determined enemy. Humans are flawed and even a 99.9% success rate at preventing terrorist plans is not good enough. Isn't it best not to inspire hatred in the first place? What benefit do US citizens receive from our government's role as the world's policeman? To blame current officials is to ignore the bi-partisan nature of our interventionist military policies since WWII. The Civil War happened on Lincoln's watch, it was inevitable that a nation that preached liberty while allowing slavery would come to such a conflict.

No, it isn't. I don't see how America can stand to benefit without actively pursuing our best interests.

It depends. In most cases, no. I am more concerned with larger, more expansive terrorist networks then public sentiment. The current administration appears to feel the same way, and has gone about dismantling the financial capital circulating within such networks.

Lets step back and go over the known reasons why Al Qaeda targets the United States.

1. Our supposed "support" of Israel. Bin Laden speaks as if we only give money and supplies to Israel when in actuality we also give the Palestinians plenty. We support a Palestinian state, but we also support the Israeli's right to a state and this is where the problem comes in. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc all want the Israelis to leave and never come back. When some of you think we should let the world take care of its self do you think we should allow the region to erupt? We are the only thing keeping Israel from destroying its neighbors.

2. We had bases in Saudi Arabia and they saw this as an invasion into their holy land. Were we supposed to allow Saddam to continue to conquer his neighbors? Gulf War I was supported by the majority of the international community as well as many Arab states.

3. They view our culture as evil and sinful. We allow our women equal rights. While the 9/11 hijackers were here in the US they ignored women and treated them like dirt. Should we also do the same just to appease them so that they don't attack us again?

We cannot just sit back and become isolationists, IMO that is much more dangerous than our current strategy. We make the world a safer place not a more dangerous one. As I stated above if we stayed out of the matters in the ME Israel would have much more territory than it does currently. Would you rather they annihilate the region? Would you rather have allowed Saddam to take over neighboring countries as he saw fit. Hell if we didn't get involved in the region it may have erupted into a WMD fight between Iraq and Israel. America does whats right for the world, not just for itself.

Gee, I wonder why Isreal's military is so powerful? Let me quote from "The Kingdom: Arabia and the House of Saud" Robert Lacy 1981 concerning aid to Isreal in 1981.



If Isreal is powerful enough today to be an aggressor in the Middle East, once again, we are the one's to blame. Yes, we keep our pit bull on a leash, remember, though, it is our pit bull.

What was the result of this military aid to Isreal? Same book, same page (pg 411)



It was not until 1982 that America was able to end the stagflation created by the sudden increase in price of a key input good and the resulting wage-push inflation. And we were able to do that by huge deficit spending and crackdowns on unions. Our national debt today is primarily due to our intervention in favor of Isreal in 1973.

If I remember history correctly, it was the British that created the Israeli nation. Before this war begun, Britain had not had an attempted terrorist attack since....when...?



There are a lot of other nations that qualify for this reason. France has Europe's largest Muslim population. It also has Europe's largest Jewish population. I find it difficult to believe that such an agressively secular nation has yet to be targetted by Al Qaeda. It would be relatively simple for them to have done it. At least, prior to 9-11 it would have been.



It may have. And tomorrow, Elvis may return from his self-imposed exile and the world will enter a new golden era of rock. If proof was presented that this may very well have occurred, or that Iraq posed a danger to any other country, I would support a war. But this "War on Terrorism" is an exercise in futility. It's rather difficult to fight ideas with bullets, and it's stupid to impose democracy by force. Terrorism will exist so long as friction exists in the middle east against whoever last did something stupid.

Then you need to review all the stated reasons for the attacks of 9-11 (and others). The situation with Saddam Hussein was directly or indirectly responsible for all of them. Was Hussein a threat to invade the US? No. To attack us directly with WMD? Perhaps not. But that doesn't mean he wasn't a direct threat to the US. His actions caused us to have to go over there in force in the first place, and his refusal to follow UN resolutions resulting from that action caused us to continue to enforce an embargo which enflamed many Arabs, and also to continue to have a troop presence there. Further, Saddam openly advocating Palestinian terrorists attacking Israel, thus furthering the divide between the US and many Arabs. Note that all of these actions have noting to do with WMD--they're merely the result of Saddam's actions, posturing, non-compliance, etc.

Yes, Europe is well known for being open and accepting to Jews, Muslims, foreign immigrants, you name it.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/a...-552065,00.html

They've their share of attacks, they just don't publicize them as much.

I have heard and read a lot about interventionism, whether it was praised as a virtue or accepted as a necessity.

I believe that America should let the rest of the world take care of themselves, for various reasons. First of all, because it costs money and lives to the Americans themselves. It's not very moral or much of an 'elevated' reason, but it still is a sensible argument.

Second, America's interventionism weakens the efforts and the very existence of the UN. If America is being seen as the soldier of the world, the UN becomes de facto irrelevant and expendable. The Iraqi conflict of 2003 has shown how weak and powerless it is when its members can't reach an agreement.

Third, I don't believe that America's power makes it the rightful protector of mankind. I have not pledged allegiance to the American flag, and all the values of Americans are not mine. To some extent, I don't see why the world would be a better place if the American values were put first and foremost and extended to all nations. In that sense, America can only defend America's values, principles, people and wealth. America plays America's game.



When you look at the military interventions currently made by America around the globe, they concern a specific type of country. In essence, the enemy is weak and its culture is notoriously different from America's. Examples are : Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea. The three latter examples are part of the axis of evil.

In the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, both countries were overly easy to invade, because there was no real threat to block the soldiers marching on, in spite of acts of terror here and there that were meant to delay the reconstruction and strike at people's courage, whether they were soldiers or civilians, Americans or else.

Don't get me wrong : I'm sure that the free people of Iraq must feel better at knowing that Saddam is now out of the game. However, all of this is a smokescreen : in Afghanistan, the warlords and the talibans still exist and resist, whereas Iraq is nothing but a pile of ruins. A lot has yet to be done.

America has succeeded in appearing as the necessary soldier of today, the warrant of global peace. The media emphasize dramatically the effect of this, but let's not be mistaken : all these targets are secondary and are used only as a decoy to make us believe that America is essential to the world.

The real threats of America are :

1. Russia with its nuclear arsenal
2. The Arab Emirates because of their dangerous wahhabism and tactical oil reserves
3. Europe, though divided, is the current economic challenger of America
4. Japan is the unmissable champion of technology
5. China holds America by the ribs, as it exports most of its manufactured products there

America needs to impress all of them because it cannot attack them directly. Security is not the key here. America is trying to save itself time.

The link refers to hate crimes, not terrorist attacks. America has also had its share of hate crimes, though, I would think, hardly as bad.



Yet WMD is the only lawful reason for the war. All the rest is fluff.

Perhaps we should let a nearby Arab country annex Israel. That way, one of those reasons will suddenly disappear.

Yes, the USA should back off in its attempt to be the world po-lice. We need to concentrate on internal affairs and protect our boarders. While I do think that we need to get rid of threats before they attack us...that doesn't mean we can just go around taking everyone we don't like out. As to whether interventionalism makes us safer or not...it all depends on who we're going after. There is no definite answer. But again...we need to stop policing the world and start letting sovereign countries take care of their own problems.

CP

What's the difference?

Both are done out of hate for basicly the same reason, religion, ethnicity, etc. They're one and the same.

But hey, there's the NIPR and New Reds in Italy, the Ulsters of Northern Ireland (bombings and shootings targeted at Catholics, classified by the State Dept as a terrorist group), and the Basque in Spain (remember the ETA, 'bout a month or so ago they caught a number of them with a large cache of explosives) for example. And until recently, the IRA. Europe has been riddled with terrorism for decades, and it still exists to this day. As I said, their 'attacks' are far less publicized.

Look at my two mentions of the word terrorism:




Both have to do with terrorism specifically in the context of Islamic and Arab fundamentalist attacks on the West. Both were used to refute Venom's reasons for Al Qaeda targetting the United States. What does the Basque and IRA have to do with eastern terrorism? I suggest you read over my words more carefully.



Terrorism is: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. A hate crime is a crime motivated by prejudice against a social group. The reason for a terrorist act may involve hate crime, but hate crime is not terrorism, just as calling someone a "nigger" isn't terrorism.*

You also very nicely prove my point with your long list of groups. Terrorism isn't going to just disappear. It's something that we will constantly struggle against as long as prejudice and cultural/political/national/ideological friction exists in the world.

Now: care to answer the questions for debate?


*Source: Websters.

I'm not really sure what your point is. Europe has had terrorism problems for decades, it's true, including some Arab terrorism (the Algerians bombed the heck out of the French until they were granted independence).

But these attacks weren't kept secret from anyone - they were very well publicised in Europe, just as the relatively few terrorist incidents in the USA have been well "publicised" in Europe, because our media do tend to cover what's going on ioutside our borders in as much detail as they cover internal matters.

We can't be blamed if the American media ignore every world problem until Americans are put at risk, at home or abroad. And the American media can't be blamed if every time they try to cover European terrorism, the American public ignore or misunderstand what is going on. They did this for decades in their broad popular support for Irish republican terrorism, to the extent of publicly raising money to support it in several cities.

Note: Before anyone asks, this was always more symbolic than important; Irish terrorists have always got most of their funding the same way the Mafia have - racketeering, protection, drug and alcohol smuggling, prostitution, etc. (Gambling is mostly legal in the UK and Ireland, so that's one arena they never had much use for, unlike the Mob.)

We have only become the world's policeman because other nations dragged us (kicking and screaming) to the forefront of foreign events. Then after we became a superpower (because of being dragged into conflicts), we were suddenly resented.

We would have been happy to keep up George Washington's recommendation of splendid isolation, and did so for over a century. I would be pleased for the U.S. to return to that state now, but that would have to work both ways. No "meddling" in foreign affairs (i.e. Iraq), but also no more aid to foreign states.

The only reservation I would have with this is that I simply don't trust any other government to keep a watchful eye over other governments in the world who have shown themselves to be quite hateful and aggressive. What they do in their own countries is their business; my business comes in when it will affect my country.

In what century was America really isolationist? In the 18th century they rebelled against the British, less than 30 years later they purchased a chunk of land from France and tried to conquer a British colony, then 80 years later they annexed Hawaii and installed a tin-pot dictatorship in Cuba. After the Spanish American War the U.S. did assume a mostly isolationist policy, until they were dragged into the first world war, and the history after that is more well known.

I think you can argue the U.S. pretty well worked under the Monroe Doctrine up into WWI and returned to that policy after WWI ended. It was only WWII and it's aftermath that the US greatly extended it's military interventions in the eastern hemisphere. When the USSR was a threat some of this intervention was needed.

And it was lack of interventionism (from many parties) that led directly to WWII. Now, you tell me--how does that fit on the scale here? One plane and a couple of buildings vs.....millions killed? Hmmm, not liking how that's adding up.

Obviously, there is a middle ground here. We're damned just as much (maybe more so?) for NOT intervening as we are when we do. So, either way we're hated by someone. At least by intervening, we can attempt to influence events in our favor. Lack of internvention also means lack of influence--I wonder how much your opinion might change if radical Islamism started taking over the rest of the world. How many isolationists would then be screaming 'Why didn't we do something?'.

You know when the word peacemaker comes to mind, I don't (and surely not in this case) think of someone (or some government) that facilitates dialogue between themselves and other countries. I think of Wyatt Earp and his Peacemaker Colt .45 Revolver. In order to ensure peace sometimes, battles must be waged.

We as a nation must not be relegated to sitting back and letting maniacs like Saddam Hussein and the like walk around, defying the rules that the rest of the world sets down and abides by. So if that means we gotta bash heads when a dictator 'resists arrest' then so be it. But I refuse to let someone who's killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children thumb his nose at us.

By being the world's policeman, the US is ideally placed to stop foreign powers from ever rivalling it. You could try to be isolationist, but would it work in the long run if China decides to go for super-power status.

Isolationism worked before WW1 because America was a long way away from Europe and easy to defend if need be. In a world with planes and nukes, being geographically far from the rest of the world does not guarantee safety - or that, by being isolationist, the rest of the world will leave you alone.

Simply defending your own borders will not help if a rival power arises that aims at taking Americas position in the world. Being proactive could prevent the situation from ever arising.

I disagree with ol' Pat and I am confused why anyone honestly would feel this would even be possible?
Not only our we preserving and protecting our physical borders and such but we also have our economic borders that we must protect too and that is without a doubt a VERY international thing...yes?

With American's appetite for their SUV's, with our desires for cheap electronics, clothes and household items, produce. I doubt if any of you in here on and on about isolationism actually live even a remotely isolated life.
And guess what whether the rest of you non-Americans want to admit it or not you also benefit and enjoy America's role in our world. Oil and the ability to suck the ME dry of it which is certainly decidedly NOT only an American pastime has been made secure and easily accomplished thanks to US intervention. I have yet to see any of the European nations who so oppose America's role in the ME take any kind of action to prove the truth of their condemnations. Because perhaps what it is that they best enjoy is the fact that they are not having to be the ones slopping around in the muck.





No wrong ..it was the UN. The United Nations...the one authority everyone is usually going on about being the main authority (which wrongly lends it an appearance of expertise) of world disputes, affairs and agreements. The US has been nation building longer than the UN ..The UK far far longer than the two combined..yet why would anyone bother to give these two countries a greater confidence of the ability to do so again? Why should we have the UN thrusted in our faces time and time again as the one to make the right solution? The one body whose main objective is suppose to be world peace and yet here we have one of the greatest mistakes to it's name in regards to world peace. Obviously their history from the get go shows a different outcome and altho I support the UN authority and the importance of this arena...I have also grown to understand that the UN is still made up of men and women just like America, Iraq, KSA, UK EU etc. is. They are all equally persuaded and influenced by their own desires and livelihood and they are all limited in their powers of intervention and that they are all with fault.




Well yes and that is what is being done. America did not invade Afghanistan (with UN support) because of their horrific treatment of women and many other human rights abuses. If we had for that reason we would be meddling with the logic of taking care of the rest of the world. We have not invaded Iraq for the hope of liberating the Iraq people and ridding the world of a madman...again the core reason is self. We ultimately did it for ourselves, anyone who says otherwise is highlighting just the added bonuses. I can not imagine American's would so willingly allow this blood sacrifice of their children if they did not feel that the sacrifice was being made personal. Most of those outside the US misinterpret these desires of ours to intervene and fling our military men and women into foreign lands as a desire of world domination or some kind creation of an American empire but I don't feel this is true I think in the end most Americans in and out of government see this as a sacrifice of self for self preservation, happiness and betterment of future. It is just that now the reality of our world is that most modern civilised nation's interests and it's self lie far beyond it's borders and thus the protection of it follows.




Yes well I have read many article/news reports that in fact the Jewish population of France is fleeing at record numbers. Yet why would al Qaeda target France alone? What would be the impact compared to New York? The world's most diverse, open and recognized city. Compared to the World Trade Towers. Why are they called the World Trade Towers and not America's Trade Towers? This was an attack on France, on UK, on Italy, on Australia, on all of the western world.




I do not really understand your point. The UN countless times has relied on American military itself. Africa is a continent where the UN's words seem to get whipped around like dust through one military slaughtering to another mass starvation onto another civil war...I hardly feel the Iraqi war of 2003 was the first example of this weakness and powerlessness.



I could not disagree more with you on these listed reasons. Yet I feel i might be going too far off topic to explain why.

I agree with whoever it was that questioned how America had ever been isolationist. America is from it's birth a nation of world views, people, beliefs, trade, and ideals. How could we ever be something that by our own creation we were never meant to be?

This may be true Julien, but I've noticed that the American media are quite one-sided and selective in their presentation of other countries compared to the British media (particularly the BBC). Or maybe its just that i'm accostomed to a certain standard of media broadcasting...

And you have implicit trust in your own government Goldblum? Mmm, I am loyal and respectful to my own government but i wouldn't trust any politician who follows Mr. Bush like a little puppy without the support of the vast majority of his people. Neither my government nor yours has any right to keep any 'watchful eyes' on another government as long as they are not a threat to us (which Saddam Hussein was not). Trust me, if you continue to invade Muslim countries they may start building WMDs. (btw Britain and America are responsible for 99.9% of all existing WMDs on Earth, so where did these terrorists get them? Mmmm).

I agree, wanderer. Really, is there any need to publicise every single terrorist attack, unless for the express purpose of stirring up racial, ethnic and religious hatred? (which the 9-11 attack has certainly done even here in Britain). Britain has for a long time suffered attacks by the IRA. In 1996 one of the tallest buildings on our London skyline, Canary Wharf, was almost destroyed. The main difference with this and 9-11 was that America are not used to attacks like this on their own soil, because you are not presently at agression with anyone that powerful on your own continent.

But, then again, on February 26, 1993 a bomb was exploded at the base of the WTC, on 19 April 1995, a truck bomb was exploded at a federal building in Oklahoma City. So you're not all that inexperienced after all!

Quite right, bucket. What benefit did it serve Britain to set up such a state? Britain had owned much of the region but was powerless to hold on to its empire and its vassals. In addition it was American money that poured into Israel by the billions, which left the United States heavily in debt.

So if Hussein was not a threat to the US, and did not have WMDs, what possible reason does the US government have for invading Iraq, Hobbes? How was he a "direct threat" to the US, (who actually set him up as their puppet there in the first place)?

You really are fooling yourself (or allowing yourself to be fooled by US media propaganda). You didn't "have to go over there in force in the first place", you should have just stayed where you are and let the UN inspectors finish their job... the 45-minute claim was rubbish, if Saddam could have launched WMDs in 45 minutes, don't you think he would have done so as soon as the first allied troop stepped into his country? In fact the 6-month claim was a load of old bloody tripe too.

Dorayakii