Pro-War Dialogues

Two Americans chatting about the latest foreign affairs after Congress had 'authorized military action against Iraq' in October 2002 ...

PROWAR: Final vote (according to Fox News): 296-133 That's one small step for President Bush and one big step for the security of our children and grandchildren!

CHORUS OF HISTORY: Unless your children and grandchildren happen to be the ones stationed in one of the Empire's Middle Eastern forts.

No one seems interested in Bin Laden's actual reason for attacking U.S. troops and finally U.S. civilians - he opposes U.S. military occupation of the Middle East. You expect further occupation to reduce terrorism?

The wisdom of the Founders has been discarded. We've traded liberty, peace and neutrality for a police state, war and foreign intervention.

Our children and grandchildren will continue to bear that burden so long as leaders are elected who are determined to maintain U.S. troops on foreign soil

PROWAR: We have troops in the Middle East because we have business interests, allies, and Americans stationed there. To enact your policy we would need to abandon these interests. That is not only like living in a fox hole. Its dangerous because like any bully, they will believe we are afraid and follow us home.

CHORUS OF HISTORY: Tell me, what are your business interests in the Middle East, and why do I have to pay taxes to defend them?

In 2001 the United States economy consumed ~19.4 million barrels of oil per day. At the current price price of ~$25 that comes to a shade over 177 billion dollars spent on oil in the United States. Now, of that oil a little over half is imported. Of the half that is imported about one quarter comes from the Middle East. (Over half of our imported oil comes from the Western Hemisphere.)

So, we taxpayers funded a military to the tune of ~279 billion dollars in order to protect "business interests" that only amounts to ~23 billion dollars to the U.S.? Do you consider that wise? Whose investment are we protecting here?

I should add to this that President Bush has proposed a 'defense' budget of 343 billion dollars for the next budget. That's not a typo, that's over a third of a trillion dollars.

We don't need to "abandon" our business interests in the region, but the risk posed by those investments should be borne by those reaping the profits, not the U.S. taxpayer.

PROWAR: Without oil we might as well live in 3rd world country. Your isolationist arguments just don't wash in this century.

CHORUS OF HISTORY: Who said we should be without oil? I just explained how much oil we get from the Middle East. Do think the Middle East is the only place that has oil? Daily the untapped reserves in the former Soviet Union skyrocket, not to mention continued exploration in Africa and off its coast. Only by keeping the cost of oil associated with the purchase of oil will alternatives be pursued.

If you confiscate 300 billion plus dollars from the American taxpayer to fund an army to defend the flow of 23 billion dollars worth of oil from one small area on the globe, I have to ask - WTF ARE YOU DOING!

Why not let people keep that money and invest it in hydrogen fuel cell research, etc.

Why could America not use her army only for their sworn purpose, to defend the Constitution?

PROWAR: So, we Americans should never travel to, stay in, or do business with anyone else anywhere else because we might have to fight to protect ourselves and such a fight would make others angry? I'd rather not live in a fox hole if its all the same to you.

CHORUS OF HISTORY: You are deliberately mischaracterizing this situation. Bin Laden didn't attack Americans for travelling. He has attacked Americans because we have posted troops in the Middle East. In case you forgot he was our ally when it served our mutual interests. We gave him money and arms just like the British.

Now we want to be the occupiers (like the Soviets he helped kick out of Afghanistan) and he's decided to bloody our nose for it.

If someone wants to build an oil well in the Middle East and make some money, they're welcome to try, but I don't want them calling the President to send in the troops and defend their investment on my dime.

The decision to place U.S. troops, sworn to defend the Constitution, not some politically connected individual's investments, in the Middle East is why terrorists have attacked those same troops, and finally our own nation.

The position of peace and neutrality urged by our Founders has been tossed aside for war and interventionism. Who benefits? Who pays?

PROWAR: Yes, their burden being as forward deployed troops help provide security to these United States. Its been that way since WW2 and I don't see it changing anytime soon in this small world. Be happy they keep you safe.

CHORUS OF HISTORY: The "forward deployed troops" (that does sound nicer than saying that our troops occupy soil on foreign lands) are the precise reason over 3,000 Americans were killed last year. Our decision to intervene in foreign disputes has brought us repeatedly to war, and you are trying to convince me it's for our security?

PROWAR: Occupiers?? Of what country? Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar? You mean the few bases we have in those countries at the wishes of their governments. You call that occupying a country?

CHORUS OF HISTORY: Your perspective colors your view. Pause for a moment and consider why those troops aren't viewed as benevolent protectors by the subjects (not citizens) of those countries.

The dictators in those countries want to keep a reign on power. If they play nice with the U.S. and the U.S. will gladly station thousands of mercs in the country. Not to defend 'freedom and liberty', but to defend the local despot who currently currys favor with the White House. The U.S. doesn't pay the whole tab on these ventures. So locals see money drained from their economy to buy weapons from the West (U.S.), and build bases for the Western (U.S.) troops. This alone builds resentment, nevermind seeing Arabs killed by Israel with missiles stamped "Made in the U.S.A."

Our interventionism carries a high price, for what exactly?

PROWAR: The United States being entangled in foreign disputes is not going to change. We are the top dog on this planet. Reverting back to an Isolationist policy is not going to ever happen. It would be nice if we could, but that's not reality.

CHORUS OF HISTORY: This place isn't a dictatorship yet. You have the opportunity to elect candidates interested in protecting your liberty, not sending your sons to fight for one foreign dictator against another foreign dictator.

It won't change when the people numbly cheerlead any and all foreign interventionism. Or do some only cheerlead the foreign interventionism of Republican presidents?

The politicians follow the polls. When people wake up and realize who pays and who profits from the U.S. policy of foreign interventionism, the politicians will follow.

The reality is that when you throw yourself into foreign wars, you get to be in wars. Period. My hope is that it's not too late, that Washington's admonition won't go unheeded forever, and that liberty and freedom-minded individuals will remind their politicians that we don't want their entangling alliances and the wars that come with them.

From Free Republic web site (October 10, 2002)

----

Reader Comments

No Comments.

Citizine Home