[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

RE: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple

Eric,    (01)

Every president on Mt. Rushmore was severely derided and painfully
ridiculed for being 'isolationist.' However, by putting Americas
interests first, they earned their place in South Dakota and contributed
to creation of the 'the last great hope of mankind' as well as the
world's largest economy.     (02)

Today, whenever it is suggested to consider America's interests first,
every bedwetting progressive whines, "Isolationist, isolationist!" while
cowering behind the apron strings of the UN and other phony elements and
false prophets of world govt.     (03)

At present, the USA maintains 250,000 U.S. military personnel on six
continents in 141 nations - foreign commitments no country in history
has ever sustained. This is wrong.     (04)

<Newsflash 7/15/02>    (05)

"The value of the dollar dropped below the euro for the first time
today."     (06)

This should break the heart of every American. This is wrong.    (07)

"Dow Jones industrials falling nearly 440 points."    (08)

A lot of this capital flight is international investors fleeing from an
America too beholden to asymmetric support in the Middle East and
counterfeit international 'trade' organizations. This is wrong.    (09)

Global trade leads directly to economic colonialism, interventionism,
global government, war and terrorism. Sadly, it is linear and
predictable.      (010)

America imported $91 billion in oil last year, half of all the oil
consumed in the country. Oil dependency has forced the USA to give war
guarantees to criminal states in the Gulf and forced the country into
power politics in Central Asia and the Caspian. Greed, free trade,
globalism and oil politics created Osama Bin Laden, plain and simple.
This is wrong.     (011)

When America is strong and INDEPENDENT the whole world benefits. It is
textbook leadership-by-example. This is what Washington, Jefferson,
Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt understood and implemented. They were
patriots, not isolationists.    (012)

Teddy Roosevelt warned of the "pernicious disease" of free trade. It is
easy to see his globalism forecast leading directly to international
terrorism.    (013)

For you scholars, free trade traces its roots to 'liberalism,' a
doctrine that demolished the traditional concept of the nation-state as
a thriving collective organism, a flourishing community, in favor of the
economic theory of laissez-faire, or the free market. This is wrong. We
know it's wrong. It never worked, and it never will. It runs counter to
5 million years of evolution and human brain physiology.    (014)

It is time to wake up and speak out. -- To the elites on 1st Ave and in
Brussels and Geneva, trade pragmatist and USA patriots are the New
Fanatics.    (015)

Cordially,    (016)

-jtm    (017)

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
[mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org] On Behalf Of Eric Armstrong
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 1:19 PM
To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple    (018)

Interesting. Some of your observations I totally agree with. Other
parts, I find myself at odds with.    (019)

You're absolutely right that it is always "the other side" that are the
fanatics. And the U.S. *was* a colony full of fanatics, at that.    (020)

On the other hand, the most violent century in the human history was at
least as much a matter of *having* conscience as of having none. Were it
not for conscience, atrocities of various kinds would have been carried
out more quietly, with less opposition.    (021)

Despite that, I find myself wondering what would be an acceptable
solution. Would it be easier if the U.S. simply walked away? Would oil
flow more freely? Would we sleep better? Would Israel survive?    (022)

Is that the solution you propose? If so, what would you predict with
respect to the outcome?    (023)

Personally, I think it is useful to recall the blustering that preceded
the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. There are, unfortunately, people in
this world to whom any form of concession is seen as a weakness to take
advantage of, and to whom force is the only viable argument.    (024)

There are other people who are open to reason and who are tolerant of
other viewpoints.    (025)

The trick is in knowing who you are dealing with, and dealing with them
appropriately.    (026)

Or do you see isolationism as a better policy for the U.S.? (It's been
tried before. With various degrees of success, and it too, as garnered
it's share of criticism...)    (027)

John Maloney wrote:    (028)