America should be militarily neutral. Not isolationist.

Whenever somebody raises the idea or suggestion that America should withdraw from NATO or stay out of international conflicts, it is automatically assumed that it is isolationist. It is same one-track minded comments whenever a person suggests that a state should secede peacefully from the United States as I tried to elaborate in my old political party. What I am talking about it is our military intreventions or adventurisms like I calling them have drawn the anger and hatred for America particularly now.The only exceptions have been World War I and World War II.

In the last 55 years, we have seen our country go from a beacon of peace and justice to world cop to a modern-day version of the Roman Empire. I honestly do not think the founding fathers had this in mind when creating the United States. They had Switzerland in mind, not Rome. George Washington himself said that America must not be involved in foreign alliances. A point that has been long forgotten by today's leaders. In history, I cannot remember a time when America has been so reviled througout the world than now. What can we do about this? Declare our neutrality militarily. America's armed forces should be primarily meant to defend it's borders.

To suggest that America must be involved in the World's conflicts is in itself total arrogance. The marks of a country too drunk in it's own power. The puropse of NATO was to counter the Soviet Union and it's puppet states in Eastern Europe. Those countries are free now. NATO has done it's job and America has done it's job and maybe it's time to withdraw from that alliance. Western Europe is more than adequately equiped to protect itself and put out it's own fires. We also should stay out of the Middle East as well. Taking sides in the conflicts there has created hatred and the violence you saw on 9/11/01 and continues to this day.

Once again, the idea of neutrality does not mean, I repeat, does not mean isolationist. I am all for continuing UN membership and all international organizations. If there are conflicts where a fair broker is needed for negotiations, then America could do this. We can also be there for humanitarian reasons. If we do have threats then we will meet them head-on but we cannot go on with this superpower strong-arming. Every country that has been a superpower throughout history has always crumbled or collapse. The Mayans, Romans, Mongols, Austro-Hungarians, British, and Soviets. All of them crumbled. You can only stay on top of the mountain for so long. The longevity of America should be based on not angering and scaring the world but helping it through peace and diplomacy and yes a strong hand when necessary.

John

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/Commonwealth.pdf

And then to get a military perspective, if you can, go to c-span and on American Perspectives, there was a piece called "The Pentagon's New Map". Very scary. It's perspective is militaristic but based on globalism. I don't think the guy, Thomas Barnett, a war strategist, is PNAC but he explains the strategy very well and includes the variables of population demographics and energy demand. I think he fails to see the importance of fossil fuel depletion and kept talking about the fact that we'll have hydrogen in 20 years. Not so, I must tell him. He also said if their is another 9/11 attack on America, we will go more towards "order rather than justice" in society. Very frightening. He also said that it won't matter who's in office, a Dem or Repub, the goals will be the same. I say there has to be another way. The piece is long but here's a link if it will work:

http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=APS&ShowVidNum=6&Rot_Cat_CD=APS&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=60&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=30

Or do a search for Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon's New Map, American Perspectives.

Oh and by the way, on his weblog for Sept 3rd, he says he's voting for Kerry!

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/

It's all depressing but I think we need to know the truth good or bad.

I think the more people look at this, the more they need to put the feet of the people in power to the fire. America does not need to be an empire. It was never meant to be. Regardless who is president in January 2005, our voices must be raised to stop this "empire building".


John

I think you exagerate the usefulness of the Roman Empire as a model, but regardless, you are right. The US government needs to have faith in the UN and encourage the development of the international community. And we should stop defense increases, completely resocialize the defense department, and with a focus on a new more efficient military probably cut the defense budget. With a strong international community, nuclear weapons, and a strong but not rediculous military, there would be no risk whatsoever of any nation ever invading us successfully.

Then you can use the strengthened international community and a more focused military to police whatever terrorist hornets nest weve opened. At the same time we need to give the UN warning and start to withdraw troops from the middle east, and then let the UN determine the best action to take while offering them all the US forces they want. Use the international community to fight nuclear weapons proliferation and terrorism.

Then you have to come back the US and fix the economy. We let our economy bubble over and now weve got to clean it up. We need to remove the ability of foriegn countries controlling our economy. We take it as some kind of given that we have to be tied economically to the world. We dont. We need to consider corporations institutions that exist only to serve the people, and when they do not, they must be shut down. We need to design a tax structure that equitably distributes profits so our economy can function properly.

We need redisgn the very shape of our government to reflect the changes in the world. We need a legislature that has more power, better represents the people, and gives representation to many parties.

If we do all this, we could become a truely restored America and truely be in a position to spread democracy around the globe. Not this aweful pyramid scheme of an economy so wild and out of control its threatning to take over the world, and not the absurd foriegn policy it promotes.

Then we could become a great deal closer to the country everyone thinks we live in in our ideals.

It all boils down to the fact that this government in Washington, D.C. has it's priorities out of whack. We are around the world putting out all these fires and our country is slowly falling apart. if anybody doesn't believe me, then go to the Bronx, go to South Baltimore, or East Oakland. Look at our public schools and our infrastructures. It's disgraceful. I am not against having a military but let's get take care of our own before we spend billions of dollars on sending troops to Iraq, Aghanistan, or the next country we invade.


John

Isn't washington dc a disaster with lots of money spend on students?

I think that there is so much corruption and bureaucracy in the federal govt and education systems that money isn't making it to students.

pioneer kids with an 8th grade education from a log cabin school are more educated than many of our students today. :(

The military is locked in to group-think and global empire. There is
no reversing it. They don't realize that their preeminance came from
the incredible might of the post ww2 economy, and its difference
with the rest of the world. This difference is crumbling, and the
militarism is weakening the civilian economy. King Canute couldn't
stop the tide, and wellwishers cannot stop a superpower from crumbling.

Ideally states should secede and form a more powerful intelligent
nation out of the remnants. All around, this will entail a new
constitution. Then why not put wellwisher thinking in to the frame
of that new constitution, as we may be dead or killed in the fall of
this superpower, and perhaps there are some traces of wisdom that
this cold war generation can transmit to the post empire one.

then what will stop it?

Honestly, I am beginning to think that the individual states best better come up with ways to rely on themselves since the government in Washington, D.C. will not reallky be there for them. I am not talking about secession now but they should start relying on their own resources and come up with ways of raising money. This goes for counties and municipalities too. If they plan on surviving particularly if Bush gets another four years.

John

As a multi-cellular organism, i can't but agree that dependency on
a failing heart, is unwise, especially if the cells can be self
sufficient without the rotton wasthington DC and the raving mad
corporate war machine there.

States need to assert their independence, so that when the whole
thing comes down, at least there is some civilization left, and not
a state dependent on a federal drip feed. The federals have pushed
to create a national monoculture which is the most dangerous of all,
as a virus like fratboy is able to corrupt everything from a single
chair.

The states will always exist... it is the federal that is going down
with its ill-advised global military campaign to stamp out the wake
of its own war creating activities. The whole military command has
failed to defend the country. What dishonour that they pretend to
be doing a service. In fact, it is they that are the welfare queens,
sucking the country dry for nothing.

Have you read "sorrows of empire" by chalmers johnson?

It sounds good. Please tell me more about it.


John

Don't take my word for it, you can read the first bit online:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0805070044/ref=sib_rdr_ex/002-3364029-8969664?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00U#reader-link

Chapter 10, is profoundly insightful

This gives states and localities a window to ramp up their income tax rates to provide for schools and infrastructure. Why recycle the income taxes through Congress and the Washignton bureaucracy??

should defend America at all costs.

to defend our borders and not as an imperial power.


John

our military has historical precedents for leading to the collapse of those nations who have done the same. I think all countries should aim for the best military they can afford, however, war should always be the very last option. I can't think of any war since WWII where we were really fighting for the preservation of our nation and in self-defense.