I agree.

I wouldn't say I'm being defensive toward the conservatives; more like trying to set the record straight. Yes, and I am marveling at my apparent advocacy of supporting the Marshall plan, and how that flies in the face of Ayn Rand's writing on foreign aid to the People's States of Europe in AS. I think the whole reason for the existence of Ragnar Danneskjold in the book was to stop the flow of foreign aid to Europe. You know, he's the pirate that seized all the relief ships going to Europe, laundered the repossessed property, and returned the proceeds to the producers.

But I can't help thinking of how difficult the Soviet Union would have been to deal with if the US had just let them take over continental Europe in the '40's and '50's. Our mistake was that we didn't know when to step back and let Europe defend itself. Now every country is socialist and is used to the USA paying for the defense of the continent.

If there is an upside to Obama's do-nothing foreign policy, it's that the countries we used to help protect are now realizing they have to take full responsibility for their own defense. The French are showing some signs of that in the wake of the Paris terror attack.

Hear, hear.

Oh, there's probably a little sarcasm there, but the point I'm hoping that everyone comes to is that you can't fight ideology, particularly of the religious kind. It's never worked in the known history of the world and it never will. Attempting to do so only serves to reinforce the priests and rulers declarations and hate.

The only way we'll ever defeat ISIS or any other group of thieves and thugs espousing any religion is through Enlightenment influence. That's what it took for us to be able to escape the control and influence of religion in our government, and it's the same for them. That may take another century, if at all. But if they're really that dangerous to us prior to that point, quarantine them and let them kill themselves and fail as they must. Put our brains and wealth in a free and open Capital market and take care of ourselves.

You're being very defensive towards conservatives, without attempting to understand the impact of the neo-cons that took over your party, on the down-low during Reagan's and Bush's I administrations, then came back into power with a vengeance with Bush II. It was so bad with Bush II, that one often wondered who the President really was. Many of those guys are still around just licking their chops over Syria and Iraq.

As to troops in Europe 70 years after WWII, what's with that. We went ahead and paid for their rebuilding and have provided their defense for all that time and quite a bit of our real debt for that still exists. 70 years, so they didn't have to protect themselves or fight. How nuts is that.

I couldn't disagree more. It's opportune that you bring up Kissinger, and then; "WE HAVE NO REAL IDEA what is really going on. Which is as it should be" and "the controls in the hands of the most eithical, educated politicians so that they will be modt likely to put ethical, educated bureaucrats into the policy positions to make the best possible decisions for our country."

I'm including an entire description of an event that Kissinger, McNamara, and LBJ swore to and used as the justification for legislation giving LBJ the authority to begin the Vietnam War. I was drafted into that "War" some 16 months later. Much, much later; McNamara and Kissinger both confessed that it was a "Black Flag" event. Totally false.

"The Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnamese: Sự kiện Vịnh Bắc Bộ), also known as the USS Maddox incident, is the name given to what were originally claimed to be two separate confrontations involving North Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. The original American report blamed North Vietnam for both incidents, but eventually became very controversial with widespread claims that either one or both incidents were false, and possibly purposefully so. On August 2, 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox, while performing a signals intelligence patrol as part of DESOTO operations, reported being attacked by three North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats of the 135th Torpedo Squadron.[1] Maddox expended over 280 3-inch and 5-inch shells in what was claimed to be a sea battle. One US aircraft was damaged, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats were allegedly damaged, and four North Vietnamese sailors were said to have been killed, with six more wounded. There were no U.S. casualties.[2]

It was originally claimed by the National Security Agency that a Second Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred on August 4, 1964, as another sea battle, but instead evidence was found of "Tonkin ghosts"[3] (false radar images) and not actual North Vietnamese torpedo boats. In the 2003 documentary The Fog of War, the former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted that the August 2 USS Maddox attack happened with no Defense Department response, but the August 4 Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened.[4]

The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for deploying US conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam.

In 1995, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara met with former Vietnam People's Army General Võ Nguyên Giáp to ask what happened on 4 August 1964 in the second Gulf of Tonkin Incident. "Absolutely nothing", Giáp replied.[5] Giáp claimed that the attack had been imaginary.[6]

In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese naval vessels present during the incident of August 4. The report stated regarding the first incident on August 2 that "at 1500G,[note 1] Captain Herrick ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G,[note 1] the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first."[7]"

I think we absolutely need to know the whats, whys, and hows of everything anyone does in gov't at all times, rather than 20 or 30 years later after all the dead Americans and treasure spent.

In that case, don't blame the conservatives for Obama bailing out of Iraq. When the USA invaded Iraq, I understood that it was a commitment similar to assuring the peace in Europe after WW2. 70 years later, there are still American troops in Europe. A similar commitment to assure the peace was necessary in Iraq. What would have happened to Europe if America had abandoned it when the Russians blockaded Berlin in 1948?

I find the original article very misleading and manipulative. The "military industrial complex" is a huge red flag. Here is some information:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/d...
Both as a percent of our GDP, as well as a percent of the federal budget defense spending is a fraction of what it was when Eisenhower coined that phrase. While I agree with the feeling of not wanting to be played for a chump by our govt, neither do I get sucked in to opinion pieces that have such an obvious agenda. Further, I have to share that my dad had his career in the State Dept ending under the time Kissinger was SecState and I know that unless you are a policy maker or a politician whose committee participation requires high level clearances WE HAVE NO REAL IDEA what is really going on. Which is as it should be. Yes, I acknowledge this is counter to the Objectivist ideal that it is the citizens country, blood and treasure, not the government's. But that is just simply not reality. Therefore, imo, the best we ( citizens) can and should do is to make sure we put the controls in the hands of the most eithical, educated politicians so that they will be modt likely to put ethical, educated bureaucrats into the policy positions to make the best possible decisions for our country.
Yes, I think both political sides have seemingly made some less than the best of decisions (they're only human) but I read opinion pieces with a very critical eye to throw out facts used in a way to simply advance an agenda.

I appreciate the response. The conservative pretense of "nation building" is nothing short of imbecilic, to be sure. Also, the ratio of innocent to insurgent casualties is no doubt excessive and could be a reason behind some radicalization. (Perhaps this effect is what Bin Laden had in mind when he decided to attack the US.) Further, the Ayatollah's comment about the chants in Iran against the US meaning the end of American arrogance may well be partly influenced by the recognition of the stupidity of the nation-building conservative mentality. I believe it even more "arrogant" - if by arrogant, you mean detached from reality through altruism.

I blame pragmatism for the current problems behind our nation building and our war on terror. Even if the end goal is peace, peace at any price leads not to peace, but to compromise, irrationality, and bloodshed. The end does NOT justify the means. At the same time, the Taliban and Al Qaeda must be destroyed ON PRINCIPLE.

I think what I'd say is that our conduct of the entire "War On Terror" has caused more terror. Even though 15 of the 19 9/11 Hijackers were Saudi's, 1 was Egypians, 2 were UAE, and 1 was from Lebanon, our attack on Afghanistan because of Bin Ladin's supposed presence there, and the attack on the Taliban for supporting his organization was justifiable, we did nothing about Saudi Arabia nor made them do anything about their problems.

But Iraq and the idea of turning Afghanistan into a democracy were the most imbecilic actions we've ever taken as a country, right behind Vietnam and more recently supporting and getting involved in the 'Arab Spring' and since then Syria. This idea that we can go in and depose, or help depose, a settled gov't regime and "spread freedom and democracy" to countries that in much of their territories, are barely above the stone age and who don't educate their people past the Qoran, is the height of stupidity and obviously had nothing whatsoever to do with any "War On Terror" that impacted the US.

As to paying attention to our own problems in the 'homeland'(I hate that word--I prefer country), I don't oppose that any more than G. Washington did 220 years ago. And the 'homeland' anti-terror force is nothing more than the creation of a police state that has nothing to do with terror. Terror in the US would be much better dealt with by treating 'terrorists' as what they really are--thugs, criminals, and insane.

And it's not only a question of What Have We Gained through or out of this War On Terror, it's what have we not paid attention to while we've bought off on all the propaganda--we've arguably been in a depression as bad as or worse than the 30's that we're still in and we've essentially lost a significant portion of our Bill of Rights protection. We've even learned that
our 'Protect and Serve and Terrorist First Responders' police force kill nearly 1,200 of our people per year instead of what our gov't has told us for years and years was only 400 or so, and they only actually kill some 20 to 30% of those they shoot.

What was Einstein's alleged quote about insanity; paraphrased: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result." Sorry for the length of this response.

I'm confused as to whether or not you're being sarcastic. I compared their religion with the Constitution. If you want to declare both cancers...

Islam is evil and I make no apologies for saying such. It is anti-freedom, anti-liberty, and anti-equality and I consider freedom, liberty, and equality good things.

Can we fight Islam? Absolutely. Anyone who refuses to agree with their worldview is fighting against them in the most effective way possible: ideologically. I agree with you that a strictly military conflict isn't going to do much. First of all you're talking about ~1.6 billion people and second because then you would be employing exactly the same tactics of conversion they espouse - violence and coercion - to reach that goal.

Based on the article, it would appear your inference is that the War on Terror causes more terror. However, 9-11, the most disastrous attack on the US homeland since Pearl Harbor, preceded the War on Terror. If the War on Terror causes more terror, how do you explain the presence of Al Qaeda before the War on Terror? Given that the War on Terror could be more limited to specific targets, how do you justify ending anti-terror campaigns that save American lives? Or do you propose a "homeland only" anti-terror force?

That sounds and looks like a comment by me to the quote defined within the lines. And I'll stand by that. The Christians had to start bailing out of Iraq before Obama. Many of them went to Syria.

Now you went too far. Arguing that their religion is bad and by inference that the West's is good, is as silly as comparing which cancer you'd rather have.

You cannot fight or defeat a religion.

The dog was already rabid and has been for ~1300 years. The bigger question in my mind is why this President chose to loose it. The three options are that he is ignorant, delusional, or complicit. I'm voting for C.

Here is the last line of the original excerpt from the article that you started this thread with:

"And where are the 1.5million Christians that were living in their native country of Iraq before 2003? That's a question for Conservatives."

That sounds like "blaming the Republicans" to me.

My platform is to pull all US troops out of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq within the FIRST 60 days. I was in Iraq in 2006 and I saw the biggest waste of everything while I was there. mrpresident2016.com

do you figure that we are paying for middle eastern oil with
our soldiers' lives? . what an amazing twist! . I will ride a
bicycle before risking the first u.s. soldier's life! -- j
.

and we're also fighting to avoid that heart attack, that
bike accident, and pancreatic cancer. . as we should! -- j
.

Be careful or you'll go blind. :D

I would have done it, too; but swore off Pragmatists.

Darn, I have to do it again. +1

Good point--and you know I don't say that much.