I’d rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Buckley Was So Right
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 41 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
People who believe that America is a bigger threat to world peace than ISIS should live under the dhimmitude and decapitation that ISIS imposes on non-Muslims. But I err in my statement. Decapitation would prevent their living.
Amen Paul, AMEN.
A wag once wrote that Buckley’s statement may no longer be true, since so many names in Boston now begin with al-
An old United Negro College Fund (TV ad) slogan applies: “A young mind is a terrible thing to waste.”
ISIS is a bit player the US set up to help fight a proxy against Assad, and give us reason to come in. Like Saddam, ISIS will be eliminated once they have served their purpose. All to keep oil traded in US Dollars and the USD as world reserve currency because otherwise, our currency = 0, and the dollar would sink faster than the Titanic. So yes, to enforce the fictional value of the dollar, the US is likely the greatest threat to world peace. Completely immoral, but utterly rational.
“ISIS is a bit player the US set up to help fight a proxy against Assad, and give us reason to come in.”
Rubbish. Completely untrue.
“All to keep oil traded in US Dollars and the USD as world reserve currency because otherwise, our currency = 0, and the dollar would sink faster than the Titanic. So yes, to enforce the fictional value of the dollar, the US is likely the greatest threat to world peace. Completely immoral, but utterly rational.”
Where do you get this delusional stuff from c matt? Prison Planet?
For those actually interested in learning about the real origin of ISIS:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/origin-isis_804002.html?page=1
For these kids and their teachers and parents, the highest form of patriotism is self-loathing, apparently. Of course, they don’t really loathe themselves; it’s all those other white people.
I have also seen it explained as a desperate attempt at psychological control of the environment: if you claim ownership of the fault , then you feel yourself to be in control.
Yes, this is all a pretext for that invasion of a country that produces a whopping 0.5% of the world’s oil supply.
You know, considering the emphasis that a lot of the Ron Paul-ites place on oil as a supposed motivating factor in American foreign policy, it’s amazing that we have not invaded Canada or Mexico, or any other country that has orders of magnitude more oil than any other country that we have in fact intervened militarily. I mean, if you really want to think outside the box as someone suspicious of American foreign policy and the continuing encroachment of the federal government, I suggest you start arming the citizenry of North Dakota.
Regarding sources of US oil imports, please see:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm
Hopefully I have interpreted the figures in the table at the web site of the US Energy Information Administration correctly. Please correct me if I err. The legend says that the figures are in monthly thousand barrel increments.
OPEC typically supplies around 100,000 thousand barrels of oil per month to the US (sometimes more, sometimes less).
Canada typically supplies a little less than 100,000 thousand barrels of oil per month to the US, but sometimes a little more.
Total non-OPEC supply of oil to the US substantively exceeds that of OPEC supplied oil. I would estimate that maybe a little less than two thirds (but sometimes more) of all our oil imports come from non-OPEC sources.
Please, folks, get the facts. When it comes to energy, most people (not a reference to Paul Zummo above) are completely ignorant and should not speak on the topic. That won’t stop them, however.
I would like to add that even though the US receives 8000 to 15,000 thousand barrels of oil imports per month from Iraq compared to receiving 100,000 thousand barrels per month from Canada, why is it a bad thing that a US-led invasion of Iraq may have helped prevent full-scale destabilization of oil supply to Europe and elsewhere? Even though I do not think history reflects such was US motivation for the invasion, nevertheless, why is stabilizing oil supply for Europe and elsewhere objectionable? No transportation oil – no coal to coal fired power plants – no electricity. I will go back to a theme I have harped on before: if you do not want nuclear (which can be used to provide electricity and supply liquid hydrocarbon fuel from native coal via the Fischer-Tropsch process), then you are stuck with importing your oil when your native oil supply cannot meet demand. It’s that simple.
cmatt- Your theory puts far too much competence in those who have demonstrated none. Obama can’t run a simple website let alone play master puppeteer over foreign policy matters in the Islamic world.
I’m going to have to go with Occam’s razor on this one and the Weekly Standard.
You are missing the point of the argument – it has nothing, zero, zilch, rien, nada to do with importing oil to the US. It has everything to do with allowing the sale of oil to only be denominated in US Currency, regardless of to whom it is sold (thus, the more sold to others, the better). It is not about the supply stability – it is about how it gets paid for. Imagine if Parker Brothers could force everyone to pay for their oil (or phone service, electricity or whatever commodity is in high demand) only using their Monopoly money, regardless of who is selling it or buying it. They don’t want the oil – they want the oil to be bought and sold with Monopoly money only, so there is a demand for Monopoly money, and they control the supply of Monopoly money. Of course, that only works for Parker Bros (and the US) so long as you can force the sellers of the commodity (or enough of them) to only use Monopoly Money. Step out of line, and the Parker Bros will come down hard on you. How else do you explain what otherwise looks like erratic mid-east policy? The Saudis get a pass, but Assad needs to be toppled; one day Saddam is our friend, then he needs to go. The only rational (as in self-interested) explanation is that these guys tried stepping off the USD reservation, and got whacked for it – regardless of their contribution to world oil production, they need to be made examples for others. You seriously think the kleptocracies of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait don’ get the message?
Obama couldn’t run a lemonade stand, understood. But then who seriously thinks he’s in charge (or for that matter, any politician)? They are just the front men. Their backers are the ones in charge.
To be fair, one of the students’ comments could be seen as simply recognizing the greater global reach of American power, and ISIS as a regional threat. Not necessarily saying US is evil, but simply it’s greater global reach than ISIS give’s the US more potential for conflict on a world-wide level. I can’t say that is completely unreasonable. He was the cleanest-cut looking student of the bunch.
The Weekly Standard article does not contradict that the US used ISIS – or more precisely, the anti-Assad rebels that became ISIS, as long as it suited US anti-Assad purposes. We’ve always been at war with Eastasia. Much like Osama was used to sucker the USSR in to Afghanistan, we support whomever serves our purposes at the moment, and pull the plug when it no longer suits us. I am not saying the US intended ISIS to become what it is, but we helped stoke the ISIS fire, and now that it is getting a bit out of control, we have to send the fire brigades to put it out. In that sense (the US constantly meddling in the internal foreign affairs of others), an argument certainly can be made that the US does not foster world peace. Although the US usually ends up being the fireman, in many cases it is also the arsonist.
There was another poll that ask people around the world who is the biggest threat to peace and the USA was a big winner that poll. When other countries see that we have troops in about 100 countries and they see how many wars we have been in… If we would stop putting our nose in other countries’ business, we would not have the reputation.
Don’t give the excuse that we are the only superpower in the world and it is our responsibility to intervene. It doesn’t say that anywhere in the constitution. No, In Geo. Washington ‘s farewell speech, he said not to get involved in foreign entanglements.
Yeah, clearly ISIS it’s on the verge of being eradicated. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/352371.php
But hey, those nine airstrikes show that Assad is totally done for.
“The Weekly Standard article does not contradict that the US used ISIS”
What you said was that we had created ISIS. Assad is a butcher and in a just world would be deposed. Our problem is that the groups opposing him, at least the powerful ones, are no improvement.
“Much like Osama was used to sucker the USSR in to Afghanistan”
We never supported bin Laden and his group came to Afghanistan long after the Soviets invaded in 1979.
“but we helped stoke the ISIS fire,”
Not at all. The Syrian Civil War is a completely Arab created situation. It is a fantasy to think that the Middle East would not be in turmoil but for the US.
“No, In Geo. Washington ‘s farewell speech, he said not to get involved in foreign entanglements.”
We won our independence largely by a foreign alliance with France. In an age of instantaneous communication and travel in hours across the Pacific and Atlantic, the idea that the isolationism recommended by George Washington, which was sound policy for a weak republic of three million people, could ever be successfully adopted today is complete madness. He also made his remarks in the context of the US picking sides in the world struggle between Revolutionary France and Great Britain, something forgotten by the latter day isolationists who attempt to turn a policy for Washington’s day into an eternal policy for the United States.
“If we would stop putting our nose in other countries’ business, we would not have the reputation.”
US interventions in the last century have led to more democracy and more peace around the globe than the world has ever known. The cause of world peace has never had a better instrument than the armed forces of the United States.
I didn’t say created – I said “set-up”. That could be interpreted as created, but I meant it as like propping them up, supplying them, not necessarily creating them.
“as like propping them up, supplying them”
We didn’t do that either.
US intervention has led to 1000’s upon 1000’s of deaths of American soldiers and civilians. Who says the democracy is best? Who are we to implement our beliefs on others? This great democracy has over 10,000 deaths by hand guns every year. That is a disgrace. We can’t handle our own problems, yet we think that we can handle other countries’ problems.
I am for helping other countries but not with our young people. We can give them financial aids, arms, etc., but human life. We can replace money, but we can’t replace lives.
I’m not talking about isolationism. I talking about non intervention. They are two different things.
Secondly, Washington probably saw what foreign entanglements brought with it.
“Who says the democracy is best?”
Me for one.
“great democracy has over 10,000 deaths by hand guns every year.”
Nonsequitur.
“We can’t handle our own problems, yet we think that we can handle other countries’ problems.”
The argument that isolationism is a sound policy because we haven’t produced utopia here is absurd.
“I’m not talking about isolationism. I talking about non intervention. They are two different things.”
A distinction without a difference. Non-interventionism as preached by Ron Paul (R.Pluto)(Retired) is isolationism pure and simple.
“Secondly, Washington probably saw what foreign entanglements brought with it.”
Independence? Washington was an enthusiastic devotee of the French alliance during the Revolution and his skillful relations with French officers paved the way for victory at Yorktown, attributable largely to the French army and the French fleet.
According to the constitution, the military is there to protect our national security. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, ISIS,taliban,etc. are no threat to our national security. None of those countries have or had the ability to invade our country. ISIS and the taliban are not countries.
The Military should be on the borders to protect our country, where ISIS, the Taliban, etc. can get across.
“Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, ISIS,taliban,etc. are no threat to our national security.”
The military exists to fight wars determined by the government. There is nothing in the Constitution about national security. One of our earliest conflicts as a nation were the two wars against the Barbary states in North Africa. The idea of course that we can ignore fires around the globe and hunker down safe and secure in Fortress America is lunacy. We tried that before in the thirties and the World had its greatest war in history.
[testing]
The French intervened. We fought the English with the help of the French on our soil.Secondly, It wasn’t the USA during that war. It wasn’t the United states of American in 1787.
Forgotten and often ignored is the contribution of Spain to the American cause for independence.
As noted, Washington advised against getting pulled into the bizarre alliances that European states frequently formed. It isn’t 1793 anymore.
Some “trad” Catholics frequently bemoan the loss of Catholic monarchs in Europe, notably the Habsburgs and their Empire, as if that was an idyllic age. The Hungarians, Slovaks, Czechs, Poles and Ukrainians begged to differ.
“The French intervened.”
Pursuant to an alliance that we negotiated with them through our agents in France.
“We fought the English with the help of the French on our soil.”
As we have fought for liberty, and our national interests, on the soils of other peoples.
“Secondly, It wasn’t the USA during that war.”
The United States of America has existed since the adoption of the Declaration of Independence by the Second Continental Congress.
c matt- I interpreted you to mean the US created ISIS as well. I’m still not convinced we have as much ability to manipulate the situation as you ascribe but that’s a difference of degree.
It also appears that you bought into the lie that we are responsible for the carnage when things don’t work to our favor. As I’ve said before, it’s certainly possible for prudent decisions today to require further prudent containment from fallout tomorrow.
This false premise that anything negative that befalls us is our fault is not sound moral reasoning and shifts proper culpability from the primary actors.
IMO America is the world’s best hope for peace. I know there are corrupt powerful people in government and in business, but America is still the best chance the world has, and, would be better if we would repent and reform and require the same of our leaders.
Donald, you better brush on your history. During the Revolution, colonists considered there colony there country.
It was one nation Joe, as indicated by the fact that we had one treaty with the Brits and not thirteen. We had a government, a flag and an army and a navy. We were a nation during the Revolution, and if we had not been we would have lost the war.
I appreciate your admonishing me to brush up on my history. Thank you. That starts my day off on a humorous note.
“Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, ISIS,taliban,etc. are no threat to our national security. None of those countries have or had the ability to invade our country. ISIS and the taliban are not countries.”
This is stunningly ignorant, considering that teams of terrorists DID invade our country and kill more many Americans than Pearl Harbor did, and did so with abilities given in part by the Taliban. Stunningly ignorant.
Also, Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars that were really fought against superpowers which DID have he ability to cause massive damage to our country (Vietnam was unusual in that the geopolitical situation shifted just as the American involvement was ramping up, which largely negated the need for the war. Vietnam would not be an evil memory for Americans today if the Sino-Soviet split had not happened and if a better and less wasteful strategy and tactics had been adopted).
–
Frankly I don’t care about the polls that show so many around the globe think that the U.S. is a threat to world peace. Before its collapse the USSR was very good at spreading that idea around, and Islamic supremacist have adopted the idea as their own. If the U.S. ‘”minded it’s own business” the people who think so would still say we caused the unrest by not intervening.
Kurt Vonnegut was right: the reason why most people hate Americans is because most people hate most people.
–
Having written all this, I do have to side with one criticism here. The anti-Assad policy in Syria has been based on a flawed premise: that there were enough pro-democracy elements in the rebel ranks to ensure the rise of a post-Baathist democracy in Syria. The Obama policy has been equivalent to throwing fertilizer into a field of weeds and thorns with the hope that a few flowers will blossom. We did indirectly seed the growth of ISIL in Syria.