Dave said:

"In the short term there are better ways to deal with the threat of radical Islam which are less expensive and more productive than a direct confrontation."

In 1821 John Quincy Adams said:

"America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice."

When John Quincy Adams served as U. S. Secretary of State, he delivered this speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 4, 1821, in celebration of American Independence Day.

John Quincy Adams certainly had some very sound ideas, at least in foreign policy. His domestic policy was a disaster, on the other hand.

And of course, two years after the speech you quote he authored the Monroe Doctrine which was subsequently used by multiple presidents as justification for interfering in the affairs of countries from the Carribean to South America to Asia.

Dave

The first sentence says it all Dave.

"George W. Bush's ongoing peacekeeping and democracy building mission in Iraq"

I reach for my barf bag, and then wonder if you really believe in your own bs. Peacekeeping? Huh?

Democracy? Huh?

Sure Davey, and there is an easter bunny too bubba.

Pablo, you'd look a lot less foolish if you took the trouble to read past the first line, rather than taking pride in not bothering. This is an article in opposition to the Iraq War - not that you'd be interested in reading any further and learning something.

Dave

Pablo doesn't read even first lines well -- he knows it all before he even begins.

No need to read.

Actually, just reading the title might have given him a clue.

Dave

Dave.

Why should I bother reading the rest of the article when the very first sentence is complete bs? I dont think so.

Clavy are you guys holding hands? How adorable :)

It's providing context, Pablo. It's explaining the rationale behind the Iraq War so that you understand the motivations of Bush and others like him. I realize you prefer to hate without understanding, but it's tedious and shallow.

Dave

Why should I bother reading the rest of the article

Why indeed, Pablo?

If you were to acquire some real knowledge, as opposed to paranoid fantasies, you'd be drummed out of the tinfoil brigade, hard up as they are for gofers.

No Dave, I just do not subscribe to the erroneous belief that a few still share that we went into Iraq for either democracy, or the obscene doublespeak of calling war and slaughtering people "peacekeeping".

Also the way in which you prefaced your whole article with that statement, which you did not say was a rationale, but you put it out as fact. Hence I did not read the rest of it, as I usually do, and simply made a comment on that ridiculous opening sentence.

Clavy, Yes you are holding Dave's hand, are your fingers interlaced? Truly you are adorable. How sweet.

Dave,

On the subject of hate, perhaps you could show me one comment out of the 300 some odd ones that I have made, where I said that I hate anyone? That includes your friends at the CFR, CIA, NRO, and FED.

I love how you put words into my mouth, if I hated someone I am perfectly able to say so. I may despise, I may ridicule, or even condemn, but hate aint my bag. As to your hand in hand partner Clavy, as I have said numerous times, I am not paranoid, if I was I would not be writing on here. Surely Clavy if you took your hand out of Dave's long enough to see clearly, you would see the logic in that. Sigh.......I suspect your far too deeply in love or infatuation to see any logic right now. Believe me Clavy it doesnt last forever.

$9 Trillion in debt and growing.

Bridges falling down into rivers.

A flood of illegal imigrants swamping hospitals and schools.

And yet Dave takes issue with the domestic policy of John Quicy Adams? How do we classify the Bush years on this spectrum? Oh, if only we had such troubles!

Nothing in the Monroe Doctrine speaks to UN peace keeping or nation building.

Robert, you were the one who brought up JQA earlier, not me.

As for the Monroe Doctrine, the first time it was really used was to justify the invasion of Mexico - but that was more like nation plundering than nation building, I suppose.

Dave

destabilize the region in order to stabilize it...creative destruction...shock doctrine economics

...has Phoenix worship become our State religion or something - ?

Dave - the self destructive irrationality of the US' invasion has been clear for years - welcome home brother

It's The White Mans Burden.

Someone who worked many years as a State Department official at embassies around the world--including the Middle East--and who, after 9/11, worked 18-20 hour days at the Dept. in Washington in counter-terrorism told me during the lead-up to our invasion of Iraq that he knew no one there who thought it was a good idea, because there was no realistically forseeable or predictable long-term positive outcome for us, or any reasonable projection of how or when we could withdraw.

How stupid, careless, and ignorant were Bush, Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld not to consider carefully the pitfalls that were obvious and apparent to so many, in and out of the government, and what malfeasence to make up/intentionally misinterpret and distort evidence to support their bad decisions?

Even Newt Gingrich thinks "we've gone off a cliff" there, but John McCain still loves the drums and bugles, and flags waving over the troops.

Some people just place the desire to do good ahead of beancounting and other practicalities. Sometimes they get lucky and it makes them great (teddy roosevelt) others it turns around and fate makes you its crying prison bitch.

Yeah, well, I only made it through five letters of this article, and I disagree with it way more than Pablo does.

Dave,

I also wonder why we have troops in Iraq, why we put them there in the first place, and how long we will continue to have them there. I'm sure it has a lot to do with our missionary ethic, which makes us want to make parts of the world where things are pretty rotten better, i.e., modeled after systems in the U.S.

More than fifty years after the armistice in Korea, we still have about thirty-five thousand troops in South Korea. Less than that, but still quite a long time after the end of the last cold war, we still have troops in Europe. How does this benefit the U.S.?

True, North Korea has an enormous standing (and unlike the rest of the population well fed) army, which could probably crush South Korea at will -- just as North Korea almost did half a century ago until the U.S. intervened militarily-- and it seems probable that the U.S. still has forces there primarily as a reason to enter the brawl should it happen. The remnants of the USSR could probably do quite a lot of harm to our friends(?) in Europe, and we may well still be there for much the same reason.

Having our forces in those places probably helps the countries where they are stationed. But what does it do for the U.S.? Of equal importance, why is the U.S. subsidizing the defense of South Korea (and thereby of Japan, from China) and Europe, both of which frequently castigate us (a) for being there and (b) for being the imperialistic war mongers which they seem to think we are? South Korea and much of Europe have gained tremendous economic stature since the Korean Conflict and the end of World War II, and can clearly make do without the military support of the U.S. Although I do not agree with Ruvy's frequently stated premise that the U.S. is on the verge of bankruptcy and worse because of the war in Iraq, I simply cannot justify our continued presence in Iraq, South Korea, or Europe on a cost - benefit basis.

I do not suggest that the U.S. fold its tents and slink off the world scene. I do suggest, as you seem to, that substantially more consideration be given to the security and economic interests of the United States in deciding which countries to assist militarily to what extent, and which to leave to their own devices.

Dan

Well Dan, it sounds like we're on the same page. All the good intentions in the world and even good results for the countries we interfere with, aren't justified if they don't bring us at least some direct benefits to justify the cost. And when the costs runs as high as it has in Iraq we'd have to get some sort of absolutely amazing payback to make it worth the effort. So much more can be achieved with much less money.

I'd like to see almost all of the troops pulled out of other countries and a complete rethinking of our foreign policy when it comes to the sort of super Monroe Doctrine we've been following. Frankly, as a capitalist and libertarian I'd like to see us switch to using alternative methods, including possibly the use of mercenaries like Blackwater for diplomatic security and other purposes. If mercenaries were good enough for Jefferson, they should be okay today.

Dave

Good intentions? Nonsense. Just words words words to decorate an invasion designed for base purposes, mainly to elevate GWB to near dictator status. Cheney and company knew that a war footing would give GWB a free hand to violate laws and the constitution and hand out money and create national debts that would keep the nation prisoner to generations of international debt while cash was handed out to the richest and most powerful Americans and a lot of non-American friends.

All that fine talk about Wilsonianism is just window dressing for plundering the US treasury and citizenry.

Nalle should be ashamed for supporting it.

Bliffle, where do you get the idea that I would ever use 'wilsonian' as anything but a perjorative? Wilson's foreign policy was a disaster. To compare something to it is to offer an insult. That you think anything 'wilsonian' could ever be good, from his meddlesome foreign policy to his racist domestic policies suggests profound ignorance on your part.

Looks to me like you didn't read past the first sentence of this article either. And BTW, the first paragraph of your comment is paranoid, hate-filled twaddle which doesn't deserve a response.

Dave

Biffle comment 21

The first paragraph is right on. Too bad the shill wont admit to the obvious. I don't see the hate Davey, I see facts.

I've said it before and I'll say it one more time: I don't hate GWB, I distrust him. In my judgement he is unreliable and makes bad decisions. Furthermore, he is a weak man who cannot confront his own failures and correct his behaviour. Instead, he tells lies. And he bludgeons people into supporting him and taking the blame.

He'll never be any better at decision making.

I don't want GWBs errant decisions to have any more effect on my life, or that of my family and friends, than the absolute minimum. He's a bum.

Dave Nalle was the one who brought up Wilson in the first paragraph of this article.

I did indeed bring Wilson up, but not as a positive example, just as a way of providing context.

I think that history will hold a different opinion of Bush than you do, Bliffle. I agree that he is a deeply flawed human being and a failure in many ways as president, but time will prove him right in some areas where he now appears to be a failure.

Dave

Where, pray tell?

Check with Orin Hatch on that, Bliffster. In his speech today he called Bush 'unappreciated' and 'a great president'. And who's wiser than Orin Hatch, after all.

Dave

Evasive.

Dave, if Satan ran as a Republican, became President and promptly proceeded to dismantle the nation's economy and plunge us into a global nuclear war, Orrin Hatch would very probably call him 'unappreciated' and 'a great president'.

Orrin Hatch is endorsing Matt Millen for president actually.

Odd Doc... I thought he already did, of course he used North Korean nuclear equipment, and since he couldn't pronounce the word nuclar every one was confused...