U2 lead singer and activist Bono visited the Pentagon to discuss Africa and the fight against global poverty with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, representatives of the two men said on Wednesday.
Among the topics at the 20-minute meeting on Tuesday afternoon were U.S. plans to set up a new U.S. military command for Africa, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said.
OK, all you gun owners who claim the best course for our national security is to stay the course with foreign military interventions. Do you mind telling me what the hell business this
globalist jet-setting environmentalist tax cheat (who expects others to fund his social engineering while he shelters his assets in foreign banks) has getting the undivided attention of the SECDEF, and why you think edging closer to
George Clooney's war will better secure national interests than
Washington and
Jefferson's warning against "foreign entanglements"?
23 comments:
That's why I read your blog. You have the guts to say what needs to be said.
There would be no need to even contemplate African interventions if it wasn't for fags like him and the clueless easily swayed people boycotting the people that were mostly keeping things in hand, at least in the sub-saharan region.
He ordered a box of f*cked up Africa and now he's got it. Is he gonna cry?
I'd like to see him go to Harare or Pretoria without a bodyguard now that his people are seeing the longterm results of putting communists that disarmed the rational and intelligent in charge of things.
While I'm at it. When I go to Africa I take guns and invariably end up donating thousands of pounds of game meat to the indigenous on a middle class income and last time over I bought a bunch of school books for tracker and guide's children too. When do I get to have a say? Do I need to be a whiny rock star?
Hunters feed Africa better than Bono ever will.
The guy is another well-intentioned idiot with more money than brains. He has no business taking up the Defense Secretary's time.
I wouldn't go so far as to say George Clooney's war is staying the course for our foreign military interventions, unless you think all wars are equally unjustified.
I would argue that washing our hands of Africa, if you will, or any other place in dire need of help, is contrary to our long term interests. Not here though, and not knowing we have fundamental disagreements on what America's role is in the world, a benign commercial one, or a force for good including the use of military.
Stan, show me where being a "force for good in the world" using the military is an enumerated power delegated to the federal government in the Constitution and I'll stand down.
The founders could not have been more clear about foreign entanglements. You cannot argue founding intent on the 2nd Amendment and then ignore it here.
Besides which, we're broke. The money for these adventures is all gone.
We boycotted and embargoed the good guys in Africa. Now it comes back to haunt.
I could say the same thing about judicial review, individual privacy, the mere maintenance of even a small standing army, etc.
I can't quite say that about the power of the executive...
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States...
He shall have Power... to make Treaties... shall appoint Ambassadors...
Congress has long ceased most of its power of declaring war, given to the President upon conditions of oversight. And I notice the Constitution doesn't say 'foreign policy,' or 'establishing foreign relations,' nor does it enumerate 'force for good' but those are inherent with the power to make Treaties are they not? The president can choose to be a force for good, or a force for evil also known as neutrality.
And what do you call the Afghanistan war? Unconstitutional? Tell that to Ron Paul who voted for it.
I don't think the Constitution limits foreign policy in any way, other than through the checks built in like elections and Congress' power of advice, consent and of the purse. Nor does it limit it to non-intervention, rather it gives virtually all that power to the executive.
Are we to interpret all 'active service' of military as 'war'? Even when they helped deliver aid to the Tsunami victims? Was that beyond the Commander in Chief's power as head foreign policy maker?
I cannot see one damn reason he was given an audience with the SecDef, except that they are probably both brain dead and glory in that commonality.
I do see a justification for beating our enemies in their homes, rather than ours.
I do not see that we should be the world's big brother in any except our own interests. I do see that we should make it known that we can be good friends, but terrible enemies. I do not what we do now is helpful in that, when we prosecute some for their perfidy and reward others for supporting that perfidy.
We should be even handed and consistent, which we now are not. We should either do what Ron Paul says and hide here at home till they come again, and chase them only as far as the borders or until they are 3 miles at sea, or we should include everybody that helped those who have already been here and around the world attacking us in our retribution and destruction of their ability and will to do it again.
Stan,
Bono a "well-intentioned idiot?" Sorry, I have to disagree. Yes, he is an idiot, a useful one. Well-intentioned? Not hardly. Bono has an agenda that would put the entire world under the doctrines of Marx and Lenin. However, if he does accomplish his goal, I want to see the look of total surprise on his face when they cut his throat just like they have every other idiot they have used.
As for our military being a "force for good" in the world: I cannot disagree more. I didn't spend 20 years in the military to do social engineering projects. I joined to defend this nation against its enemies. We have no business engaging our military in social projects. It is prejudicial to good order and discipline and diverts precious resources from our war-fighting capabilities.
If you want America to be a “force for good” in the world, the military is entirely the wrong vehicle for that. A good solid Bible preacher would be a far better fit for the task. In fact, without the rest of the world being schooled in the same manner as the Founders, they are not going to get any better. It is expressly NOT the job of the US military to do that. If that needs to be done, it needs to be done by private individuals and organizations - NOT the U.S. Government or any of its agencies.
If we wish to be a “force for good,” the battle is ideological and cannot be accomplished with social “do-gooder” projects or military force.
By the way, if we cannot straighten out the mess we have in this country, what makes any of you think that we are qualified to "straighten out" the messes they have in other countries?
That stated, perhaps I should burn my ID card in protest of this latest shenanigan?
I thought I'd posted a reply to Stan, but I see it did not come through. Good. In exasperation, I typed in something tantamount to a Jim Zumbo /Lee Paige moment that would have required a profound apology--not to Stan, who I did not diss, but to...well, forget it. If nobody saw it, I give myself a pass.
The danger with comments, as opposed to a post or article that I can shelve and re-read and then sanitize for consumption, is that they are raw, like the old days of live TV--very difficult to take things back wihthout seeming cheesy and self-serving.
Emotion is not a good platform on which to mount an argument, and I am as vulnerable as any.
So let me begin again, and thank God for the glitch.
Stan:
In re judicial review, I'm assuming you mean Marbury v Madison. That's the subject fit for a different venue, so I'll not address it here. As for individual privacy, aside from the 4th Amendment, the Constitution itself delegates no powers to the fedgov to abrogate it, so I'm not sure why that's germane. And as for standing armies, the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise them--subject to two year appropriations,which they do,and also a navy.
As for declarations of war, note how well we've done since we stopped having Congress make them--the last clear victory was in 1945 (note I am not including mismatches like Haiti and Nicaragua, not to minimize the danger to troops, but just as comparisons in commitment, intensity and duration as Viet Nam and Korea). Paul is storngly for returning to that, and the reasons are sound: the direct represenmtatives who are most accountable to the people, Congress, are the ones who need to make it--that acts as an important check and balance on behalf of the ones who must directly pay for it in treasure and blood.
As for Afghanistan and Paul's vote for the Joint House Resolution, all I can really say is we are at times presented with problems of urgency for which the only solution is an imperfect one. Rather than make excuses, here is what he said. People will have to judge for themselves whether his statements, made in response to the crisis of the moment, and without benefit of hindsight, resonate as reasonable in the circumstances:
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Sadly, we find ourselves today dealing with a responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances. To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex.
The best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under these circumstances was the power of Congress to grant letters of mark and reprisal in order to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties. The complexity of the issue, the vagueness of the enemy, and the political pressure to respond immediately limits our choices. The proposed resolution is the only option we are offered, and doing nothing is unthinkable.
There are a couple of serious points I would like to make. For the critics of our policy of foreign intervention in the affairs of others, the attack on New York and Washington was not a surprise, and many have warned of its inevitability. It so far has been inappropriate to ask why the U.S. was the target and not some other Western country. But for us to pursue a war against our enemies, it is crucial to understand why we were attacked, which will then tell us by whom we were attacked. Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or 10 countries will not help.
Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal nor to know when the war is over. Inadvertent or casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.
Too often over the last several decades we have supported both sides of many wars only to find ourselves needlessly entrenched in conflicts unrelated to our national security. It is not unheard of that the weapons and support we send to foreign nations have ended up being used against us. The current crisis may well be another example of such a mishap.
Although we now must fight to preserve our national security, we should not forget that the founders of this great nation advised that for our own sake we should stay out of entangling alliances and the affairs of other nations.
We are placing tremendous trust in our President to pursue our enemies as our commander-in-chief but Congress must remain vigilant as to not allow our civil liberties here at home to be eroded. The temptation will be great to sacrifice our freedoms for what may seem to be more security. We must resist this temptation.
Mr. Speaker we must rally behind our President, pray for him to make wise decisions, and hope that this crisis is resolved a lot sooner than is now anticipated.
And I forgot to add to the last post: No, of course the president may not legitimately make treaties that assign himself powers not delegated in the Constitution. That would be a prescription for total tyranny.
Not to say he wouldn't do it and it wouldn't be upheld by traitors in govt, I'm just saying it would be illegitimate in terms of founding intent. Of course it would then be up to us to decide how badly we wanted to oppose it.
David, I don't want nor have the time to respond to every comment, but I'll give it a go another time. First I will say I agree almost verbatim with straightarrow.
Judicial review as established by Justice Marshall in that case was a power not enumerated, but inherent, or for the critics, it was plucked from thin air. I'm persuaded by Marshall. It's an inherent and implied power, like the feds have power to deport aliens, immigration quotas, establishing government banks, also see McCulloch v. Maryland. I think with the president's constitutional role as commander in chief and head of state, he can do what many presidents have been doing since Tripoli -another undeclared military conflict. These inherent and implied powers aren't specifically enumerated. Philosophically, I don't worry too much because of the checks Congress has over 'foreign entanglements.'
I hate the status quo as much as you do, but retreating our presence and our role globally as Paul wishes to do, is something that may have been in line with the needs and thinking of the 18th and 19th century, but not today. Not with 30 minute countdowns to a nuclear attack, and not with rogue states ready to send proxy fighters on a one-way trip into a U.S. landmark, and not with valuable allies like Israel who has the best intel in the most dangerous places.
As for undeclared wars, we did well in Tripoli, achieved the objective in Korea, and did very well in Iraq in 1991. And even today, we may be able to pullout of Iraq victoriously with honor and hopefully a good ally and trading partner.
I find it hard to believe the mere act of congressional declarations of war determine results on the ground, but yes, they do help keep congressmen accountable. Yet even if Iraq was a declared war, we'd still be hearing Democrats complain about it wanting to pull out.
As things are now, we would need a constitutional amendment, or more unlikely, a SCOTUS decision saying that all major military conflicts must be declared wars by congress. Simply because the War Powers Act and virtually all the skirmishes and major undeclared wars initiated by presidents have yet to be found unconstitutional.
I tend to agree with straightarrow on most things. I can even agree with engging the enemy on his land and not ours. I have no problem with hounding an attacker to the ends of the Earth. However, I do not see most of our military engagements as doing that. Why was Iraq targeted as the home of our "enemies" when the vast majority of the 9/11/01 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan I can understand, though the entire "war on ( a noun)" is more of a law enforcement issue than a military one, except in a limited support role. Militaries do not have a real good history of engaging popularly supported terrorist groups and winning. Yes, if the group has pissed off the general population they can be isolated and annihilated, otherwise they just melt into the background.
Stan, the person who appears to be thinking with an 18th or 19th century mindset here is you. Have you ever heard the term "the White Man's Burden" ? That is what you appear to think is the best course of action. I have trouble understanding that.
If a nation harms innocent US citizens then yes, the hammer of god needs to come down upon them. Otherwise, live and let live.
Oh, could one of you answer a question for me. Is Switzerland 'isolationist'?
Gentlemen,
The battle is an ideological one. Whether it is Islam (radical or otherwise the goal is the same -- that all the world worship Allah) or Communism (everyone in the world becomes a secular Humanist) those are ideologies that must be countered with an ideology -- not military force. Killing people is not a effective way to change their thinking.
I will submit to you all that we are not doing such a hot job of winning the idological battle here in the US of A. What makes anyone then think that we can do a better job overseas. Arguing about Ron Paul's foreign policy while we lose everything we have here is quibbling and pointless -- particularly after we have lost the country.
Arguing about Ron Paul's foreign policy while we lose everything we have here is quibbling and pointless
Arguing about Afghanistan and Iraq when the topic started and stated was about Africa is also pointless and silly.
I've got a globe and last time I checked...well, I didn't see either Iraq or Afghanistan, nor even Pakistan on the African continent.
From the blog=(OK, all you gun owners who claim the best course for our national security is to stay the course with foreign military interventions.)
Seems fair to comment Thomas
David said,"Paul is storngly for returning to that, and the reasons are sound: the direct represenmtatives who are most accountable to the people, Congress, are the ones who need to make it--that acts as an important check and balance on behalf of the ones who must directly pay for it in treasure and blood."
I agree with David and Ron Paul on that. The problem is Congress has actively avoided the responsibility and accountability that accompanies it. Perhaps Mr.Paul,personally, has not, but Congress, as a body, has been very remiss in fulfilling their duty in this regard and that remission has been purposeful. Whether one holds the view that we should have done what we did or that we shouldn't have, Congress has not exercised its power in either regard. They left a power vacuum that the executive has claimed as his province and exercised as his own right. That is anathems to their duties and to the constitution, nevertheless, they did abrogate their power to the president. That is the entire reason we are in this mess.
To Gregg's surprise, I am sure, we are still mostly in agreement. Had Congress exercised its power as I would have had them do, had I the influence, we would not have fought the Viet Nam War, we would not have gone to Nicarauga, Panama, or Grenada.
I exempt The Korean War from this opinion since we caused it and nearly caused the enslavement of a free nation by our diplomatic blunder. That is a different issue to be argued another time.
Further we would not have gone to Kuwait and ultimately Iraq, the first time. Especially after diplomatically assuring Hussein we would not take a hand in any conflict among the region's neighbors as did Bush the elder.
Which means we most probably would not be there now. That's not a given, but very damn probable. Especially as we do not exert the same force against other nations in the region that have been as injurious to us, or even more so, than Iraq, but for some reason we consider untouchable as our "friends".
It cannot be truthfully said that Iraq was not a supporter and supplier of terrorism, that is a nonsensical argument that detracts from the real issue. It can be truthfully said that they were not the premier agent of terrorism for which we had cause to worry. I will not argue with anybody that makes that distinction. Which is something we should have done as a nation, but did not,post 9/11.
But the fact is Congress sat on its collective hands and all these things happened. We are now in an alley fight. Regardless of how we got in it, we dare not lose. We have no way to break off without the direst consequences, both immediately in sacrifice of our troops on the ground and ultimately in sacrifice of our citizens at home once we have painted ourselves as cowards who have not the will to see a thing through. It matters not whether that would be true. It matters greatly that our enemies would hold that perception and be encouraged to commit more atrocities against us.
If Ron Paul could grasp that concept or if he does, would expound on it, he would have my vote. Otherwise I am not prepared to make human sacrifices of American of the magnitude inherent in what he currently publicly proposes.
straightarrow said:Otherwise I am not prepared to make human sacrifices of American of the magnitude inherent in what he currently publicly proposes.
straightarrow said:As for putting a super majority for Democrats in Congress and a Democrat in the White House.
I think maybe it is time, whether we do it by voting third party or by just staying home.
in that event one of two things will happen, the country will be destroyed or the people will wake up and take it back. If the latter doesn’t occur, we won’t deserve a country, liberty, or even life if we, as citizens, allow it to be destroyed by political fiat in contradiction to the principles upon which it is based.
That is my brand of pragmatism. If it doesn’t work, and we refuse to fix it, but it is used as a weapon against us, then let it die.
It would appear you are "prepared to make human sacrifices," the only points of contention being the method and circumstances...
Thomas,
Whether it is Africa, Asia, Europe, or any other part of the globe, foreign policy is foreign policy and intervention is intervention. Any time we work outside our borders and territory we are involved with a foreign nation. In the context of the discussion, discussing U.S. foreign policy toward any nation is legit.
The problem here is that arguments are being made over a proposed foreign policy which some use to justify not voting for the only true Second Amendment supporting candidate, Ron Paul.
However, I see something else in the discussion here that is equivalent to ignoring the elephant in the living room. As yet, no one has identified our true antagonist in the world and their ideology. Until that is done, any foreign policy any President engages in is doomed to failure. Moreover, discussions about American actions in the world are skewed and uninformed.
Precisely what do you all think would have happened to Hussein's ability to wage war if Moscow had cut off all supplies of armaments and technical assistance back in 1980? The very same question needs to be considered when discussing the DPRK, Syria, the PRC, etc., etc. In fact, every single "terrorist" group has been funded and supplied from -- guess where? -- Moscow.
When we turn to the internal struggle we are engaged in, what ideology permeates the "Left" and where did it come from? The same goes for the environmentalists, animal rights, gun control, black activists, and even the street gangs -- just what background and ideology do they hold? (You can add gay rights and all Hollywood to this as well.)
There is a lot to be said for the insight of Anatoly Golitsyn and Cleon Skousen and what they saw (from different angles) concerning the Communist drive to overthrow America.
We are losing our rights due to an ideology that has been swallowed by the American people, hook, line, and sinker.
David said, "It would appear you are "prepared to make human sacrifices," the only points of contention being the method and circumstances"
You missed the point of the quote to which you were responding. If we are not alarmed now, when will we be? Will it take an all-out assault on our civil rights by our own government, one that cannot be disguised? Will we keep crawling in bed with betrayers?
That is what we have done in the past as the lesser of two evils. I am not inclined to be a part of it. That includes the lesser evil of a domestic constitutionalist, whom I mostly agree with, but who would cause us as much harm as any of the others by what he has so far proposed in his foreign policy. Bear in mind, that should he do what he says he will do, we will sacrifice many of the people who went where we sent them and did what we asked them to do. Then the atrocities will begin here.
What do you think the effect on our civil liberties will be then, when we are attacked here much like the Israelis have been? Do you not think the political and electoral backlash will destroy any chance of retaining any of our rights when the people start demanding the government gather unto itself more and more power in the name of keeping them safe?
The people who would have us flee the field at this late date are the people who would make this inevitable.
I do not think Ron Paul sees this far, but his so far professed plan would end just that way with any good he could have accomplished destroyed along with the country.
So as I said you have missed the point of that comment by me. My thought on it is that it may be in our nation's interest to force upon the majority a glimpse of what they can expect from their government while we have a chance to take it back.
And if after, that glimpse the majority cannot determine to regain full citizenship with all its attendant rights, perhaps we are not worthy of them.
This is much milder approach than forcing on the country a hysterical demand for more protection by government because they are badly frightened by the atrocities that will befall us if we do not prevail now that we are in this alley fight.
Sometimes you just have to let the kid touch the hot stove before he decides to embrace it.
Disagree for all the reasons I've stated here and elsewhere, but I'm burned out trying to convince a couple people here of that and the endless arguments that entails. I can either spend my time trying to satisfy continual objections or continue with promoting what I believe and why, which is what I'm going to need to focus on.
And the bottom line is, I see speculation on how your scenario will be less destructive--providing people wake up, which I see no evidence of happening, and if it doesn't, the repressions and deaths internally could make anything Al Quaida has the capability of delivering pale.
We will have that scenario under a dem admin anyway, but what the hell...
I will repeat the only delivery system the terorists have is via our lax border, port, immigration and visitation controls, which everyone else besides RP will continue.
"And the bottom line is, I see speculation on how your scenario will be less destructive--providing people wake up, which I see no evidence of happening, and if it doesn't, the repressions and deaths internally could make anything Al Quaida has the capability of delivering pale."-Davod
Agreed. We are not as far apart as you think. I am hoping the instinct for self preservation is not dead in the American people. I don't think I would bet on it.
If Paul addresses a rational plan for disengagement he has my vote. If he does not we are talking a distinction without a difference.
I suppose impatience is a driving force in my outlook as I do not expect to be around if our demise is drawn out.
I will stand with you in resistance to tyranny no matter the means forced upon us. I just don't see anything approaching an effective plan from anyone yet to avoid the problem altogether, which is what I would prefer.
You are correct about the delivery systems today. But the situation is not static and will not remain so. That is the first problem. The second problem is that I see no plan for effectively implementing the controls we are already supposed to have on our borders.
Without implementation nothing changes.
So adding the two we come up with three. The plan is not in place in any candidate's platform, and if it were the situation would change as our enemies become more sophisticated in breaching our defenses.
In fairness, this will be the case no matter what, so this deficiency cannot be laid at only one candidate's door. That is why I want Ron Paul to come out in favor of discouraging our enemies by winning this alley fight.
That won't ensure our safety, but it will go a long way toward making attacks on us unattractive.
And if it matters, I regret that we seem to be so far apart on this and that you seem angry about it. I truly respect your opinion and almost always am in agreement.
I am in lower case agreement now. I think Paul is the best that is left. I don't know if that is good enough for me. I am tired of "good enough for government work".
I admit my impatience could possibly be due to my expectation of not being able to help if a resolution to our predicament is not forthcoming soon. How much of that emotional influence is germane, I cannot objectively say.
Not angry, just pounding my own head against the wall.
Post a Comment