Media Double Standard

[Divinus Arma]

So your argument is that if America were isolationist, then secrecy would be unnecessary?

I would also assume that you have an answer for fighting terrorism since surrendering on the international front is a component of non-intervention policy. Though I would hardly call destroying our enemies abroad intervention, since that is our affair and not an affair between 3rd parties.

[Divinus Arma]

The answer to fighting terrorism is to go back in time and never start screwing with the rest of the world anyway. Whether the terrorists are valid in their hate or not is beside the point--the problem is that they percieve us as bad for our meddling.

I think if we became more isolationist it would allow alot more resources available to securing the borders. But I think stopping our screwing around would end alot of the hostility within a generation or two anyway.

So you are essentially saying that we should end global trade. After all, it isn't just our military support of Kuwait in the Gulf War or our actions againstthe Taliban, or our desire to see a nuclear-free Iran, or our support of Israel that pisses 'em off.

They hate our culture, our way of life, even our food. We would have to withdraw all of our global trade influence. That would destroy the U.S. economy and the world economy along with it.

Since when is surrendering to the desires of minority fundamentalist extremism the way to go?


Our meddling, as you put it, is mostly economic. We buy their oil, give 'em McDonalds and American movies, etc.

Our military meddling is actually quite limited. We assisted Kuwait in the Gulf, which pissed off Usama and his cronies because infidels were based in Saudi Arabia. We took out the Taliban (and I personally had a hand in that and I can tell you that the people of Kabul whom I spoke with were quite pleased- One man called the Taliban "thugs under the banner of Islam"). Then we invaded Iraq and removed a brutal secular non-religious dictator, but mishandled the occupation.

What other military meddling are you talking about? And besides, you yourself have advocated the invasion of another country (Iran or N.Korea?) and stated you would be "the first to sign up". You're also a die-hard supporter of Israel, which gives the extremists even more reason to hate us.

I understand that you are isolationist, as your "lets flee from the UN" thread suggests, but what exactly are you looking for here?

You aren't consistent in your policy analysis so I'm having a hard time figuring out where you're coming from on this.

[Divinus Arma]

Oh I'm being consistant. You just keep trying to throw a bone in there and mess things up. Rework your premises, and you'll see where I'm coming from.

No bones. Just trying to get the full picture of your vision for foreign policy.

The Muslim Extremists hate us for alot of reasons, of which I am sure McDonalds is very low on the list. I think our participation in the creation of Israel, and our heavy-handed influence in middle-eastern politics has alot more to do with it.

I agree with all of this. The only heavy handed influence in the middle east has been: (a) Destroying the Taliban and supporting a moderate Democracy in Afghanistan, (b) Unconditional support of Israel, (c) Removing Saddam Hussein, the evil secular dictator.

What would you call sucking off the Prince of Saudi Arabia? We're stroking his nuts with our loot while gagging on his black love juice that powers our economy. Same with Kuwait and every other rich oil baron in the region. Our money gives them their Rolls Royces.

There's no bush to beat around when it comes to North Korea. I've never advocated an invasion of Iran, to my knowledge. North Korea has missiles, and says they are pointed at us. It is not meddling to go after them, it is self-defense. A true pre-emptive strike, and not the bull that the Bush Administration was spouting about Iraq.

So? China has missles pointed at us and so does Russia. N. Korea is a unique issue that requires unique attention.

Backroom meddling is ridiculous.

Not at all. Example: Jordan is actually one of our biggest allies in the region. Sadly, the King has to place a two-faced role because his insane fundamentalist population hates Israel and the U.S. We can't publish our backroom deals with him because it would get him killed or overthrown. In an instance such as this, we are protecting our allies through secrecy. He want to help us, we want to help him and everybody wins.

It requires an element of secrecy and underhanded actions that pissess off the rest of the world and requires suppression of freedom at home.

As an isolationist who would like to withdraw from the UN, you should hardly give a hoot what the rest of the world thinks. As for suppression of freedom at home, I already conceded that you were correct with the NY Times and that the press has no obligation to keep the government's secrets.

We should be blunt with the rest of the world. Mostly, however, I don't think we need them. What do we need the UN for? What good does pumping billions of tax dollars into a corrupt and innefficient organization do?

It establishes a forum for international dialogue. It may not always work, but it promotes the open exchange of ideas between nations, fostering transparency. Silence and isolation contribute toward suspicion, and eventually aggression. The problem with the UN is that nobody gets kicked out for being a douche bag. The UN needs reform to give it a little bit of teeth and a whole lot of accountability.

Foreign Wars are a tricky subject. I don't think there is a foreign war since Korea where our aims have been widely believed or even terribly clear to the general public.

Vietnam had the same intent as the Korean War: Containment of communist expansion. The Gulf War freed Kuwait from Saddam. Afganistan kicked out the Taliban. The only war of doubt is this sucker in Iraq, and most of us on the right feel pretty clear about why we went in and why we remain, regardless of the management there.

We should strike only where it is an imminent threat to our nation's safety, and we should do such a complete job of it that no nation has the balls to try it again.

America has immense power. We have the obligation of restraint where possible. We could intentionally kill civilians and eradicate infrastructure to send a warning to others, but then we would be as bad as our enemy. America's conduct of war is reflective of our value system. We value life, no matter who's life that may be. This is why I abandoned "sheet of glass" rhetoric. It's un-American.

Think about it. We could completely annihilate Iraq if we wanted to. But instead, we choose to excercise caution and it gets our boys killed. We are willing to risk the lives our men in order to prevent the unnecessary killing of civilians whenever possible. Sadly, it is not always possible and the innocent die with us all.

Oh, and as for Israel. I don't think it was a smart idea to make the country. I would have been against its creation. But seeing as how that is beyond the point of complaining, I think Israel is the only nation in that region with any sanity, and the only nation that truly has no intentions beyond protecting itself and its people. So while I disagree with all the money we spend on that nation, I am definately "rooting" for its success on moral grounds.

We don't exactly prop 'em up as a client state with wads of cash. They have their own industrialized economy and generally just purchase our military hardware and technology.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Although my main point stands: Where secrecy is necesarry, some precautions must be taken to ensure that the luxury of secrecy is not enjoyed a little too much by an errant executive.

Pithy. I like.