AZJoe
09-09-2016, 07:57 AM
Michael Scheurer Rip WashPo Stupidity: Is there anyone there with half a brain?
Not wanting to fund, equip and train and terrorists is “isolationism”.
Respecting national sovereignty is “isolationism”.
Respecting national borders is “isolationism”.
Respecting a just war doctrine is “isolationism”.
Respecting the Constitution is “isolationism”.
Promoting free trade and commerce is “isolationism”.
Promoting diplomacy and dialogue is “isolationism”
Promoting peace is “isolationism”.
These neocon nitwits are just nuts.
http://non-intervention.com/2343/to-the-washington-post-is-there-anyone-there-who-knows-anything-about-america/
(Michael Scheurer, former CIA officer and Chief of the Bin Laden Station)
To the Washington Post: Is there anyone there who knows anything about America?
[N]o political figure of any prominence in U.S. history has ever called for an isolationist foreign policy. Why? Because we are a trading nation and so must be involved in commerce in all areas of the world, as well as in joint scientific endeavors, banking relationships, and dozens of other dealings that are part of being a nation-state existing in a world of nation-states. As Pat Buchanan once said, the term “isolationist” has been used, since the 1930s, as a slur by those upper-class and foreign-owned Americans who want the United States to intervene in other peoples’ wars … Britain and France in the late 1930s, Israel, NATO, and the EU today — who want us to intervene in the wars they have started or want to fight, and, in essence, fight their wars, pay for them, and then clean up the postwar mess. Since 1945, the adjective “isolationist” also has been used to identify Americans opposed to U.S. intervention in wars … “pro-communists,” “America-haters,” and “anti-Semites.” …
Non-interventionism is not in any conceivable way a deviant kind of foreign policy. It is, after all, the foreign policy the republic’s Founders … While it reigned in the White House, the United States fought few if any overseas wars. Since it was abandoned … America has had, quite literally, almost nothing but unnecessary wars. …
Because [the Founders] knew history and human nature better than any current U.S. politician, and because they also knew that history always repeats itself, the Founders believed that war brought death, deep debt and high taxes, internal divisions, and the tyranny that is the inevitable product of the war-engendered growth of excessive executive power. They believed these results would occur even in wars that America had to fight because they were life-or-death struggles for the republic’s existence; that is, necessary wars. Naturally enough, then, the Founders were confident that involving America in other peoples’ wars that were irrelevant to U.S. national security would be a gross stupidity that would unjustifiably impose on Americans the unending grief resident in the host of plagues just mentioned. …
a non-interventionist … means neither isolationism nor pacifism. … So the Post, as always, is wrong. … NATO is a deservedly dying entity because (a) they will not fund their own defense; (b) they are without commonsense, except for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic; (c) they bait Russia with their democracy-mongering — as in the Ukraine — while counting on the U.S. military to rescue them; (d) Americans are no longer is willing to go war automatically if one of the other 27 NATO nations does so …
Not wanting to fund, equip and train and terrorists is “isolationism”.
Respecting national sovereignty is “isolationism”.
Respecting national borders is “isolationism”.
Respecting a just war doctrine is “isolationism”.
Respecting the Constitution is “isolationism”.
Promoting free trade and commerce is “isolationism”.
Promoting diplomacy and dialogue is “isolationism”
Promoting peace is “isolationism”.
These neocon nitwits are just nuts.
http://non-intervention.com/2343/to-the-washington-post-is-there-anyone-there-who-knows-anything-about-america/
(Michael Scheurer, former CIA officer and Chief of the Bin Laden Station)
To the Washington Post: Is there anyone there who knows anything about America?
[N]o political figure of any prominence in U.S. history has ever called for an isolationist foreign policy. Why? Because we are a trading nation and so must be involved in commerce in all areas of the world, as well as in joint scientific endeavors, banking relationships, and dozens of other dealings that are part of being a nation-state existing in a world of nation-states. As Pat Buchanan once said, the term “isolationist” has been used, since the 1930s, as a slur by those upper-class and foreign-owned Americans who want the United States to intervene in other peoples’ wars … Britain and France in the late 1930s, Israel, NATO, and the EU today — who want us to intervene in the wars they have started or want to fight, and, in essence, fight their wars, pay for them, and then clean up the postwar mess. Since 1945, the adjective “isolationist” also has been used to identify Americans opposed to U.S. intervention in wars … “pro-communists,” “America-haters,” and “anti-Semites.” …
Non-interventionism is not in any conceivable way a deviant kind of foreign policy. It is, after all, the foreign policy the republic’s Founders … While it reigned in the White House, the United States fought few if any overseas wars. Since it was abandoned … America has had, quite literally, almost nothing but unnecessary wars. …
Because [the Founders] knew history and human nature better than any current U.S. politician, and because they also knew that history always repeats itself, the Founders believed that war brought death, deep debt and high taxes, internal divisions, and the tyranny that is the inevitable product of the war-engendered growth of excessive executive power. They believed these results would occur even in wars that America had to fight because they were life-or-death struggles for the republic’s existence; that is, necessary wars. Naturally enough, then, the Founders were confident that involving America in other peoples’ wars that were irrelevant to U.S. national security would be a gross stupidity that would unjustifiably impose on Americans the unending grief resident in the host of plagues just mentioned. …
a non-interventionist … means neither isolationism nor pacifism. … So the Post, as always, is wrong. … NATO is a deservedly dying entity because (a) they will not fund their own defense; (b) they are without commonsense, except for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic; (c) they bait Russia with their democracy-mongering — as in the Ukraine — while counting on the U.S. military to rescue them; (d) Americans are no longer is willing to go war automatically if one of the other 27 NATO nations does so …