where he lauds, of all people, Jimmy Carter for foreign policy strategy.
Jimmy Carter is one of the worst foreign policy Presidents in history. His ham-handed handling of events like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the hostage crisis is one of the many reasons President Reagan defeated him by such a large margin in 1980.
In contrast to the contrite, apologetic Carter President Reagan offered strong, bold leadership which called for the confrontation of our enemies (though not exclusively via the military). Carter's methods failed and Reagan's worked.
For someone to come around at this point in time calling for a return to the Carter-era apologia of American power and presence and the global retreat from our obligations just boggles the mind. Where was Badnarik in the 1970s and 1980s? Our enemies grow bolder when we show signs of weakness. We will not be "left alone" by Islamic fascists today any more than we were in 1979 when Iranian radicals invaded the United States embassy grounds and took hostages which they held for more than a year.
Hiding under a blanket never has been and never will be a good foreign policy.
Update: Jimmy Carter has added to his foreign policy "credentials" by claiming that the Revolutionary War was not necessary. Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy...I always knew you were a defeatist. Current Mood : determined
The idea that any measure OTHER than brute force (which you have to admit is basically what the current policy has been) is 'hiding under the blanket' or 'using spitwads' is ridiculous and irresponsible, besides.
So what measures, SHORT of force, SHORT of throwing our military might around, would you use?
I'm not sure why you would exclude the use of force.
IMO it is the only language fascists undertsand. You cannot reason with them, they have no pity, they are remorseless and relentless. They will hunt us down and kill us. (Apologies to Terminator fans ;)
Unless we kill them first. Just like we did with the Axis in WWII.
a) Germany surrendered. We had several other nations involved, and the situation was somewhat different.
b) Japan surrendered. They are much smaller, and we had the use of our Navy in that one a bit more (since they're an island) and they are big on honor - we won, they lost, and they abided by our rules.
c) Saddam didn't surrender. His people integrated and are taking back over the system. They see us as conquerors, not as a nation they were warring on that finally overcame them. WE invaded THEM, not the other way around.
i would be a libertarian if they could get their act together, but even since my frist libertarian meeting in college, some ten years ago, now, they still haven't gotten organized very well. interesting to know, though. thanks for the info.
"Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we're always 'against', never 'for' anything."
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Previous entries