Time for US to leave NATO, UN and the Mid

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/24/world/meast/iraq-unrest/index.html

What's happening in Iraq is just more evidence that non-interventionism is the best US policy. We don't need to get involved in Mideast affairs. There should be a US foreign policy plan to remove our military forces from the Mideast and end our dependency on oil from that region. There's been talk about ending the dependence, but not enough action.

The fact that our involvement in Syria has been greater than our government has told us is an example of the military/industrial complex out of control. We need a Commander in Chief who understands the concept tof non-interventionism, because if we keep getting in deeper in the Mideast, it could be the tipping point that collapses us financially. But aside from the financial disaster of Mideast involvement, it's none of our business how the people of this region settle their differences.

The US justifies it's meddling in the affairs of Mideast countries by hiding in obscurantism of UN and NATO actions. UN and NATO are useless organizations for which the US has no good use. America should be a trading nation, one with a military strong enough that no one chooses to challenge it -- we defend our borders and trade freely with all countries -- that's enough.

Iraq: Bombings and more bombings

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17441751

When looking at cause and effect in the mideast, it's almost impossible to sort it all out. One thing is clear -- Iraq is a long way from stability and security. Stability and security are precaurious even in more advanced countries, but in places like Iraq, one wonders how these nations can survive.

Up with Chris Hayes 2/26/2012 -- Is Hayes a partisan hack?

He sure is acting like one. The guests on Up with Chris Hayes this morning were Jeremy Scahill, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Zainab Salbi and few others I can't remember. Scahill and Slaughter started the program arguing about America's legitimate role in the Syrian civil war. Slaughter believes that the US can pick the right faction to arm and support and that this will somehow lead to the desired humanitarian results. I don't know how many times we have to intervene in these mideast religious/civil wars before we realize we don't understand the difference between the good and bad guys, and I'm not sure they even understand -- it's mainly about who's strong enough to gain control. Scahill rightfully believes in a non-interventionist policy, and when he used Libya as an example of a recent US failure, Slaughter said that the Libyan situation is better than when Qaddafi was in power. I don't think it's any better now in Libya, just a different form of tyranny.

The discussion shifted to Iran, and Hayes brought on an Iranian for an inside perspective -- Hooman Majd. Majd said that US actions to scare Iran are having a countereffect. Again, we can discuss all the particulars, and hawks can find a thousand reasons why Iran is dangerous, but our best policy is to leave the mideast alone and develope our own energy. This was the next discussion, high gas prices, and how much is the fault of the Iran situation. There's always a particular reason for short term fluctuations in oil and gas prices, but if we allow a free market approach long term the market will address the problems of supply and demand, and we won't be jerked around by political manipulations from global climate change freaks and politicians who score by pandering to them.

Hayes used these topics to spout propaganda against Republicans by bringing up an analogy to the Iraq War in relation to the war-talk now surrounding Iran. Hayes showed Bush, Cheny, Lindsay Graham and John McCain talking about the danger of Iraq, and he left out Bill Clinton's war-like statements toward Iraq, and he left out the fact that Democrats voted for the Iraq War and failed to defund the war when they knew it was bogus. He also left out Obama's actions to escalate war in the mideast, and Obama's tendency to kill innocent people with drones. Hayes' revealed an egregious partisan bias that I hate to see in someone so smart -- it limits his intelligence and relevancy. There is a problem with a powerful State that has left the military industrial complex without oversight, and both parties are to blame. Come on, Chris, don't become just another babbling partisan, we have too many as it is.

Up with Chris Hayes 12/18/2011 - America, the State, and War

I only got to watch the first 30 minutes of Up with Chris Hayes, but it was a good thirty minutes. We need more open discussion of war and America's foreign interventions. 9/11 has created a spirit of war that has to be reasoned out if we're ever going to make the 21st century smarter than the 20th century.

We've heard a lot in the last decade about the right to life, civil liberties, gay rights, liberty, fairness, etc, but, except for the antiwar movement during Bush's presidency, which now reveals more anti-Bush activity than anti-war activity, we've seen very little analysis of war and the efficacy of our mideast policy. To make this clear, I think pacificists are misguided, because self defense is necessary and moral. If an individual chooses a pacifist position, then that is admirable if the person chooses the consequences of such a position, but to urge a general pacific position for a nation is irrational. A country has a right and obligation to defend itself from attack. But unless there is a strict doctrine of non-interventionism except in cases of attack or when our national security is under imminent threat, we are susceptible to the powers that benefit from war.

The spirit of a country is important. A country such as America, which values life and liberty, should naturally promote peace and use its military only in extreme situations, and should never develope the spirit of war. The dearth of proponents for peace, and the great number of those who rationalize every US military intervention as warranted, is troubling. Once a Democrat became President, the anti-war movement dispersed. You have to look hard for a representaive in DC who takes a non-interventionist position regarding foreign affairs. There is much patriotic hoopla surrounding our military actions and very little objective critique regarding the wisdom of our interventions. We've been at war for a decade, and many recommend that we extend our military presence in the mideast -- some say for fifty years! If someone suggests a non-interventionist, strictly defensive doctrine, they are smeared as an isolationist.

In many ways, Americans are sheltered from our military interventions, because the wars are not fought in our cities. If we all had to suffer from the consequences of war like the families of dead or severely injured soldiers, we'd have a different perspective, and we would want to know that without a doubt the wars are vital to our national security. We wouldn't allow our government to enter wars so easily.

How many Americans have thought deeply about the mideast interventions? How many have simply accepted the decisions of our leaders? With polls showing the public has little faith in our government regarding the direction of our economy, when it comes to war the American people, for the most part, have unqualified faith that the wars are necessary and moral. The US has built the largest and most lethal military in history. War is a profitable industry for many large corporations, and, again, with so many people protesting the power of large, protected corporations, there is little mention of the military/industrial complex and the incentives it has to continue this geared up war on terrorism. Are we waiting on the war machine to tell us enough is enough?

Our soldiers are exhausted, and there is nothing to be gained at this point from troops remaining in Afghanistan. Yet, there is talk from the hawks that we should expand our interventions to Pakistan and Iran. Where does this all end? Is there an end, or are we in a perpetual war against a relatively small number of terrorists?

Have we really left Iraq? Hayes brought up some important points about war and the state of the State and America in 2011.

Meet the Press 12/11/2011 -- Gingrich and Paul

On Meet the Press today, David gregory started out by interviewing Ron Paul. Paul did an excellent job distinguishing himself from Gingrich and Romney. Paul made a case for consistent, principled efforts to rollback Progressive advancements, stating he's the only candidate prepared to fight for systemic changes necessary to make a difference. The political class is beginning to realize they've underestimated Paul and his influence on the primary and the party. Both Romney and Gingrich are moving closer to Paul's positions.

After Paul's interview, Gregory interviewed Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham. Both Durbin and Graham presented partisan commercials, but Graham's was more believeable. Ron Paul's influence was revealed again when, at the end of the interview, Graham pleaded with Paul to stick with the Republican Party. Paul is a power broker right now, but he's also a viable candidate who can win in Iowa and gain momentum in New Hampshire.

The round table consisted of Ted Koppel, Chuck Todd, Alex Castellanos and Lisa Myers, with the Iowa governor particpating by video. The topic, of course, was Gingrich and Romney and the debate last night. Myers and Koppel were dismissive of Gingrich's lead in the race, but Castellanos and Todd realize that the GOP base is serious about Gingrich. It's not just Gingrich, the base is looking for someone who can articulate a limited government, free market transition. The Iowa governor said that Iowans are responding to Ron Paul. The question batted around the panel was whether Gingrich has changed, and if Gingrich can maintain discipline. This led to questioning whether Romney has played it too safe. It appears the political class is beginning to understand that conventional wisdom regarding the GOP electorate is off track, and that something is going on that might confound the pundits and the polls.

An interesting exchange came at the end of the program when Koppel talked a little about an interview he had with the ambassador to Iraq. Although Obama is giving the impression that we're leaving Iraq at the end of the year, we'll still have CIA, FBI and other American personel left behind. Around 1300 of these Americans are in harms way. Koppel believes they will be attacked, and that this will pull our military back into Iraq. Ron Paul have called for total withdrawal to avoid ongoing entanglements. Once again, Paul is right.