Do geostrategic reality, and America's national security matter to you?
1) So is your argument that the USA should not defend its national security interests if they conflict with the world's expectations? The last time I checked, 77 US senators and two-thirds of the American people supported going to war in Iraq in 2003. What is your evidence that this "hatred" exists anywhere beyond radical Islamists, American defeatists and European pacifists who are conveniently unwilling to defend their own national interests, but more than happy to let Americans defend their access to crude oil while they sit on the sidelines and hurl invectives at the nation that is the only reason they are not Nazi slave laborers for eternity? Since when is liberating a country from the rule of a tyrant like Saddam and trying to establish a viable democracy and investing billions of development dollars a valid cause for criticism? Especially when a large majority of the Iraqi people would not trade their current situation for life under Saddam. Your flawed premise assumes that the rest of the world is automatically right and America is wrong which could not be further from the truth from any rational perspective.
2) The Kyoto protocol was unanimously rejected by the US Senate before Bush ever took office, and the deficiencies have not been repaired since that time. The international criminal court is a farce--nothing more than a venue for hostile nations to bring relentless and groundless causes of action against American soldiers who are performing their missions all over the world. No responsible President would expose its soldiers and citizens to the whims of anyone who opposes America's foreign policy. There are other venues for legitimate action and America regularly pursues criminal action against its soldiers and citizens where appropriate. Withdrawal from the ABM treaty in no way threatens Russia and may be the only way for America to protect itself from nuclear missile attacks by rogue tyrannical nations. Putin is just using the issue as a false pretense for his global mischief and to support a huge increase in Russia's military capability for no reason other than his imperialist ambitions.
3) So Germany's environmental minister should be the final authority on America's national interests, which happen to be very different and more complex than Germany's? The USA's carbon emissions would not be an issue if the Democrat Congress had not ignored Gerald Ford's proposal for 200 nuclear power plants that was made in 1975. There is no compelling evidence that global warming would be "measurably" affected if Kyoto was fully implemented tomorrow, and nothing would change as long as China is allowed to continue to build 50 new dirty coal plants annually.
4) America is donating huge amounts of money for AIDS compared to everyone else and the USA should have every right to determine the terms of the programs it supports rather than abdicating that responsibility to others.
5) The USA's attempts to prevent Iranian domination of the Persian Gulf are not an effort by America to "dominate" the Persian Gulf but a responsible effort to defend the most vital economic interests of the Western world from domination by radical Islam. Every approach has been tried to get Iran to abandon its nuclear program through EU negotiators with no success. That has resulted in the increase in rhetoric about other options. Do you honestly believe that the Iranian regime would value American security assurances or willingly abandon its nuclear ambitions that guaranty the regime's survival no matter what the USA says or does? Do you really feel it is okay for an aggressive, radical Islamic regime (that hates and has relentlessly threatened the USA and Israel) to obtain nuclear weapons that could cover their territorial ambitions in the Middle East? Do you seriously believe that any piece of paper Iran signed would be any more valuable than the one Hitler signed for Neville Chamberlain? Should the historical lessons of negotiations with tyrants be ignored?
6) Putin's semi-authoritarian state? Are you living in a fantasy world? Putin is a totalitarian tyrant who is pursuing a disturbingly similar course to Hitler's in the 1930s. Putin knows that the USA's proposed ABM system is no threat to Russia, and he even boasted that fact himself when introducing his new "undefeatable" ICBM system last week. Putin's bluster is nothing more than an exercise in creating a pretense for pursuing his greater imperialistic ambitions to make Russia a dominant superpower. The only way he can do that is through radically driving up the price of oil to propel his economy and his military build up, and destroying the American economy by limiting America's access to low cost crude oil. These two realities are conveniently symbiotic, and Russian-supported Iranian aggression in the Middle East after America retreats from Iraq could provide Putin the perfect opportunity to achieve his goals. Putin's reckless ambitions should be the primary concern for the USA because they dwarf any concern Putin has for the issues you stated.
7) Are these sorts of bogus distractions really helpful to defending America's national security in a very dangerous world? Are the illegal and unsanctioned actions of a few irresponsible soldiers at Abu Ghraib and the holding of enemy combatants during a time of war real issues or the convenient, over-hyped tools of demagogues who care more about their own political ambitions than America's national security?
The left's obsession with phony conspiracy theories, and their recklessly false and self-destructive ridiculing of Bush and their self-serving and dangerous demagoguery on Iraq are the only sources of erosion in America's global leadership. America's enemies all over the world are enjoying the spectacle of America's geostrategic self-destruction in a cauldron of self-serving political ineptitude, demagoguery, hatespeak and pacifism that are relentlessly fostered by the American left.
Jun 8 2007 - 1:35pm