Armed Chinese Troops in Texas

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In a non-humorous vein, I am open to correction.

The ideologues I have seen promote NIOF under all circumstances--and ignore human nature--are not too good at acknowledging threats--and organizing capabilities--from bullies. And they have not been open to correction in light of any fact put before them.

Sorry, but from what I have read, I am better at it. So I will never swallow their ideology whole.

To be fair, like I said, the view the Ron Paul supporters presented in the propaganda ad is a valid point I believe far too many people here in the USA don't see. The ones that scare me, though, are the ones who refuse to see it.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

General principles cannot be applied to a given context unless you first have general principles.

George, This presumes that I do not have general principles. I do. Here's a good one. You must correctly identify something before you evaluate it if you wish the evaluation to be valid. That's why I do not like propaganda. It leads people to incorrect identification as a path to a predetermined evaluation. Also, I believe general principles should be drawn from observation over time, not simply dreamed up. I don't find your bank robber example relevant to this form of thinking (cognitive before normative). Michael

I give up.

Ghs

Why don't we just sit on this for a day and let me at least think this through a little more?

--Brant

Sure. But since the role of general principles and exceptions has been a major interest of mine since college -- I have a lengthy section on the subject in my forthcoming book, Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism, from Cambridge University Press -- permit me to offer this summary.

In many situations, general principles create presumptions, which we can also call default settings. These presumptions are defeasible presumptions, i.e., they can be "defeated," or overridden, in exceptional cases. But the burden of proof falls upon the person who wishes to justify such exceptions. He is the one who must explain why a given principle should not be observed in a given case.

This process of defeating a presumption generates a number of other problems that need to be addressed. For example, what criteria should we use to identify a legitimate exception? In other words, how will we recognize a legitimate exception to a general rule if we happen across one? It won't do for a person to defend a general principle and then, when he encounters a situation that he doesn't like for some reason, say, "The principle doesn't apply here."

Well, maybe not, but the person who defends an exception has the onus probandi, i.e., he must justify the exception, and he must do so in terms that do not destroy the principle itself.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Frankly, I don't see you presenting and/or defending points of view, other than your own...

George,

This is simple.

This is because I am right.

Michael

Warmonger! Warmonger!

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

You might find this interesting (or not). It's is a side issue.

There is one aspect of principles that has fascinated me from a neuroscience standpoint.

When a general idea that we use as a frame gets set in our mind, a physical neural pathway gets formed. This is made up of dendrites and axons and synapses. It gets thicker the more we use it.

We cannot identify the idea with the pathway yet (and I'm not sure we will ever be able to), but we can identify the areas of the brain that light up when people are given specific things to think about. And the light-up parts of the brains of those who have had more focused thought and repetition on a subject throughout their lives are much larger than those regions in other people.

In some of the literature I have read, there seems to be a crossover point where someone becomes so convinced of an abstraction (like a principle, or a deity) that his brain physically accepts it and starts processing it in the same manner it does an observed fact (a "hard" fact).

Here, a belief is not only accepted by a person on faith. the belief literally becomes part of his brain as a neural pathway and, if repeated in focus often enough without challenge over, say, years, creates a truth that is not verified by the senses, but is literally and physically perceived by the person as such.

(The area that governs this is called "neuroplasticity.")

I believe this is a great reason to keep exceptions to principles in mind. The step between a rational principle and dogma is merely that crossover point. And this can happen to a person without him perceiving it.

I believe that's one reason why some people suddenly change from reasonable to dogmatic and people around him ultimately ask, "What happened?"

Even the person himself can end up asking that if he is lucky enough to have a suitably serious attack of contrary focused reasoning. (Just because one strong neural pathway can be formed, this does not stop other strong pathways from cropping up.)

Michael

[George H. Smith]

I used to have an oversized book with high quality reproductions of Nazi propaganda posters. One in particular -- a silhouetted head shot of a soldier (in profile) with nothing more than "SS" (written as lightning bolts) in a lower corner -- was remarkable, and it is easy to understand why German boys would be seduced by it.

I couldn't locate that poster online, but I found many others. Here is one that (except for the Swastika) almost looks Randian:

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George,

You might find this interesting (or not). It's is a side issue.

There is one aspect of principles that has fascinated me from a neuroscience standpoint.

When a general idea that we use as a frame gets set in our mind, a physical neural pathway gets formed. This is made up of dendrites and axons and synapses. It gets thicker the more we use it.

We cannot identify the idea with the pathway yet (and I'm not sure we will ever be able to), but we can identify the areas of the brain that light up when people are given specific things to think about. And the light-up parts of the brains of those who have had more focused thought and repetition on a subject throughout their lives are much larger than those regions in other people.

In some of the literature I have read, there seems to be a crossover point where someone becomes so convinced of an abstraction (like a principle, or a deity) that his brain physically accepts it and starts processing it in the same manner it does an observed fact (a "hard" fact).

Here, a belief is not only accepted by a person on faith. the belief literally becomes part of his brain as a neural pathway and, if repeated in focus often enough without challenge over, say, years, creates a truth that is not verified by the senses, but is literally and physically perceived by the person as such.

(The area that governs this is called "neuroplasticity.")

I believe this is a great reason to keep exceptions to principles in mind. The step between a rational principle and dogma is merely that crossover point. And this can happen to a person without him perceiving it.

I believe that's one reason why some people suddenly change from reasonable to dogmatic and people around him ultimately ask, "What happened?"

Even the person himself can end up asking that if he is lucky enough to have a suitably serious attack of contrary focused reasoning. (Just because one strong neural pathway can be formed, this does not stop other strong pathways from cropping up.)

Michael

Philosophers put the same thing in different terms. They say that when we act habitually long enough, the habit becomes second nature. This means that the principle becomes part of our character, almost as if we were born with it. It becomes integral to our sense of who we are, and we tend to see the world (especially the moral and social world) from this perspective.

No offense, but I prefer the psycho-philosophical explanation to yours.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

That's not the point.

Neuroplasticity has proven that the mind alone (without any sensory input or action) can physically alter the brain. That's the point. All you need to do is think on something long enough and your brain changes, like in long term changes.

As to the psycho-philosophical explanations, I prefer to add this new knowledge to them rather than use them in a "philosophy trumps science" contest (which almost always brings a smile to my face for being so beside the point),

Here's a good example of building on the old with the new. Notice that the Qu'ran (the old) is written in the present tense. And notice that believers recite parts from it five times a day. And, also, notice the high percentage of violent fanatics within Islam as compared with other religions.

You could say that this is due to the ideas, but frankly, I don't see any radical difference in myth, dogma, violence, etc., between the sacred texts of Islam as compared with Christianity. The one difference I do see is this present tense thing and constant recital almost as hypnosis sessions.

Now look at neuroscience (the new). What I call the lizard brain either acts automatically (for heartbeat, breathing and so forth), or it reacts to something the person encounters. The time span of its perception is practically relegated to the present and its reactions are instantaneous.

In creating a neural pathway, you have to take the processing deep into the brain in order to change the brain's perception of fact. Texts (or affirmations) written in the future or past are not nearly as effective as texts written in the present for this.

In some circles, this has led some authors to assert that the subconscious does not understand anything but the present. I believe they have seen the difference in effectiveness in their own projects and explained it to themselves this way. Especially seeing as how you can get some hypnotic results from using past and future (albeit weaker ones).

Our inner Godzilla explains this better. Ole' Godzilla (notice the "God" in that? ) doesn't have much of a notion about the future or past. But he has a hair-trigger on the present.

Understanding the neuroscience involved here could be very useful in devising ways to get fanatics hell-bent on murder to reconsider and focus their faith on an Allah who does not command them to kill innocent people. (Presuming they continue as Muslims.)

So far, nothing in ancient wisdom has been able to tame this particular beast. This is something that I believe deserves some serious effort.

(I can't resist Beck's way of saying this, although it has nothing to do with neuroscience: If the God you believe in commands you to love, then follow Him. If he commands you to kill innocent people, he's the Other Guy. )

Michael

[9thdoctor]

But since the role of general principles and exceptions has been a major interest of mine since college -- I have a lengthy section on the subject in my forthcoming book, Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism, from Cambridge University Press -- permit me to offer this summary.

I don’t recall you announcing this book deal before. When is it due? I gather your hedonist memoir is on the backburner.

[George H. Smith]

But since the role of general principles and exceptions has been a major interest of mine since college -- I have a lengthy section on the subject in my forthcoming book, Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism, from Cambridge University Press -- permit me to offer this summary.

I don’t recall you announcing this book deal before. When is it due? I gather your hedonist memoir is on the backburner.

My book was accepted for publication by Cambridge nearly two years ago. It was accepted "as is"; a contract was signed, and no revisions were requested. I was never very happy with certain parts of the book, however, so in my infinite wisdom I decided to undertake some major rewrites, including two entirely new chapters. This was all fine with Cambridge, but without adequate financing the revised version took much longer than I expected. I will be submitting the final manuscript in around two weeks. I don't know yet when it will be published.

If I knew then what I know now, I would not have gone to all the extra trouble.

Work on my memoirs is hit and miss, as I get the time. This is something I would like to market to publishers only after the manuscript is completed. This will be the most marketable book I will ever write, and I don't want to get boxed into a deadline that I must rush to meet, or cannot meet at all. I would like to make some decent money from the memoirs (Sex, Drugs, and Philosophy: In Pursuit of a Hedonistic Life), and this is a distinct possibility if I take the time to write the book as it should be written.

Ghs

[Martin Radwin]

When this USA is not threatened, of course it should not intervene.

The devil is in how a threat is perceived. If you see a country devoted to conquering the world gearing up to conquer its neighbors, the issue gets complicated. Here is where I believe context really matters.

If the USA's experts in these matters honestly believe that such a country will grow into a gigantic threat as it annexes other countries by invasion, thus it will become a threat to the USA in the foreseeable future, it's far better to nip the evil in the bud than wait to engage in a war where millions get slaughtered.

If the threat is practically nonexistent (say, like with Iraq), we should just leave well enough alone, but keep an eye on it. I'm speaking of the second war.

Below is a list of wars and military engagements by the U.S. since the end of WW2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

1945–1949

1945 – China. In October 50,000 US Marines were sent to North China to assist Chinese Nationalist authorities in disarming and repatriating the Japanese in China and in controlling ports, railroads, and airfields. This was in addition to approximately 60,000 US forces remaining in China at the end of World War II.[RL30172]

1945–49 – Occupation of part of Germany.

1945–55 – Occupation of part of Austria.

1945–46 – Occupation of part of Italy.[citation needed]

1945–52 – Occupation of Japan.

1944–46 – Temporary reoccupation of the Philippines during World War II and in preparation for previously scheduled independence.[citation needed]

1945–47 – US Marines garrisoned in mainland China to oversee the removal of Soviet and Japanese forces after World War II.[3]

1945–49 – Post World War II occupation of South Korea; North Korean insurgency in Republic of Korea[4]

1946 – Trieste (Italy). President Truman ordered the increase of US troops along the zonal occupation line and the reinforcement of air forces in northern Italy after Yugoslav forces shot down an unarmed US Army transport plane flying over Venezia Giulia..[citation needed] Earlier US naval units had been sent to the scene.[RL30172] Later the Free Territory of Trieste, Zone A.

1947 - Greece. US Marines land in Athens and assist in the re-establishment of monarchy and the arrest of Greek Communists.

1948 – Palestine. A marine consular guard was sent to Jerusalem to protect the US Consul General.[RL30172]

1948 – Berlin. Berlin Airlift After the Soviet Union established a land blockade of the US, British, and French sectors of Berlin on June 24, 1948, the United States and its allies airlifted supplies to Berlin until after the blockade was lifted in May 1949.[RL30172]

1948–49 – China. Marines were dispatched to Nanking to protect the American Embassy when the city fell to Communist troops, and to Shanghai to aid in the protection and evacuation of Americans.[RL30172]

[edit] 1950–1959

1950–53 – Korean War. The United States responded to North Korean invasion of South Korea by going to its assistance, pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions. US forces deployed in Korea exceeded 300,000 during the last year of the conflict. Over 36,600 US military were killed in action.[RL30172]

1950–55 – Formosa (Taiwan). In June 1950 at the beginning of the Korean War, President Truman ordered the US Seventh Fleet to prevent Chinese Communist attacks upon Formosa and Chinese Nationalist operations against mainland China.[RL30172]

1954–55 – China. Naval units evacuated US civilians and military personnel from the Tachen Islands.[RL30172]

1955–64 – Vietnam. First military advisors sent to Vietnam on 12 Feb 1955. By 1964, US troop levels had grown to 21,000. On 7 August 1964, US Congress approved Gulf of Tonkin resolution affirming "All necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States. . .to prevent further aggression. . . (and) assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asian Collective Defense Treaty (SEATO) requesting assistance. . ."[Vietnam timeline]

1956 – Egypt. A marine battalion evacuated US nationals and other persons from Alexandria during the Suez crisis.[RL30172]

1958 – Lebanon. Lebanon crisis of 1958 Marines were landed in Lebanon at the invitation of President Camille Chamoun to help protect against threatened insurrection supported from the outside. The President's action was supported by a Congressional resolution passed in 1957 that authorized such actions in that area of the world.[RL30172]

1959 - Haiti — The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his own private police force, the "Tonton Macoutes", who terrorize the population with machetes. They will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign.[citation needed]

1959–60 – The Caribbean. Second Marine Ground Task Force was deployed to protect US nationals following the Cuban revolution.[RL30172]

1959–75 – Vietnam War. US military advisers had been in South Vietnam for a decade, and their numbers had been increased as the military position of the Saigon government became weaker. After citing what he termed were attacks on US destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf, President Johnson asked in August 1964 for a resolution expressing US determination to support freedom and protect peace in Southeast Asia. Congress responded with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, expressing support for "all necessary measures" the President might take to repel armed attacks against US forces and prevent further aggression. Following this resolution, and following a Communist attack on a US installation in central Vietnam, the United States escalated its participation in the war to a peak of 543,000 military personnel by April 1969.[RL30172][not in citation given]

[edit] 1960–1969

1962 – Thailand. The Third Marine Expeditionary Unit landed on May 17, 1962 to support that country during the threat of Communist pressure from outside; by July 30, the 5,000 marines had been withdrawn.[RL30172]

1962 – Cuba. Cuban Missile Crisis On October 22, President Kennedy instituted a "quarantine" on the shipment of offensive missiles to Cuba from the Soviet Union. He also warned Soviet Union that the launching of any missile from Cuba against nations in the Western Hemisphere would bring about US nuclear retaliation on the Soviet Union. A negotiated settlement was achieved in a few days.[RL30172]

1962–75 – Laos. From October 1962 until 1975, the United States played an important role in military support of anti-Communist forces in Laos.[RL30172]

1964 – Congo (Zaire). The United States sent four transport planes to provide airlift for Congolese troops during a rebellion and to transport Belgian paratroopers to rescue foreigners.[RL30172]

1965 – Invasion of Dominican Republic. Operation Power Pack. The United States intervened to protect lives and property during a Dominican revolt and sent 20,000 US troops as fears grew that the revolutionary forces were coming increasingly under Communist control.[RL30172] A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country's elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.

1967 – Israel. The USS Liberty incident, whereupon a United States Navy Technical Research Ship was attacked June 8, 1967 by Israeli armed forces, killing 34 and wounding more than 170 U.S. crew members.

1967 – Congo (Zaire). The United States sent three military transport aircraft with crews to provide the Congo central government with logistical support during a revolt.[RL30172]

1968 – Laos & Cambodia. U.S. starts secret bombing campaign against targets along the Ho Chi Minh trail in the sovereign nations of Cambodia and Laos. The bombings last at least two years. (See Operation Commando Hunt)

[edit] 1970–1979

1970 – Cambodian Campaign. Cambodia — The CIA overthrows Prince Norodom Sihanouk de:Norodom Sihanouk, who is highly popular among Cambodians for keeping them out of the Vietnam War. He is replaced by CIA puppet Lon Nol, who immediately throws Cambodian troops into battle. This unpopular move strengthens once minor opposition parties like the Khmer Rouge, which achieves power in 1975 and massacres millions of its own people. US troops were ordered into Cambodia to clean out Communist sanctuaries from which Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacked US and South Vietnamese forces in Vietnam. The object of this attack, which lasted from April 30 to June 30, was to ensure the continuing safe withdrawal of American forces from South Vietnam and to assist the program of Vietnamization.[RL30172]

1972 - North Vietnam - Christmas bombing Operation Linebacker II (not mentioned in RL30172, but an operation leading to peace negotiations). The operation was conducted from 18–29 December 1972.

It was a bombing of the big cities Hanoi and Haiphong by B-52 bombers.

The bombing provoked "only" about 1600 casualties due to an evacuation of the big cities Hanoi and Haiphong.

1973 – Operation Nickel Grass, a strategic airlift operation conducted by the United States to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War.

1974 – Evacuation from Cyprus. United States naval forces evacuated US civilians during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.[RL30172]

1975 – Evacuation from Vietnam. Operation Frequent Wind. On April 3, 1975, President Ford reported US naval vessels, helicopters, and Marines had been sent to assist in evacuation of refugees and US nationals from Vietnam.[RL30172]

1975 – Evacuation from Cambodia. Operation Eagle Pull. On April 12, 1975, President Ford reported that he had ordered US military forces to proceed with the planned evacuation of US citizens from Cambodia.[RL30172]

1975 – South Vietnam. On April 30, 1975, President Ford reported that a force of 70 evacuation helicopters and 865 Marines had evacuated about 1,400 US citizens and 5,500 third country nationals and South Vietnamese from landing zones in and around the US Embassy, Saigon and Tan Son Nhut Airport.[RL30172]

1975 – Cambodia. Mayagüez Incident. On May 15, 1975, President Ford reported he had ordered military forces to retake the SS Mayagüez, a merchant vessel which was seized from Cambodian naval patrol boats in international waters and forced to proceed to a nearby island.[RL30172]

1976 – Lebanon. On July 22 and 23, 1976, helicopters from five US naval vessels evacuated approximately 250 Americans and Europeans from Lebanon during fighting between Lebanese factions after an overland convoy evacuation had been blocked by hostilities.[RL30172]

1976 – Korea. Additional forces were sent to Korea after two American soldiers were killed by North Korean soldiers in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea while cutting down a tree.[RL30172]

1978 – Zaire (Congo). From May 19 through June 1978, the United States utilized military transport aircraft to provide logistical support to Belgian and French rescue operations in Zaire.[RL30172]

1979 - Nicaragua — Anastasios Samoza II, the CIA-backed dictator, falls. The Marxist Sandinistas take over government, and they are initially popular because of their commitment to land and anti-poverty reform. Samoza had a murderous and hated personal army called the National Guard. The Contras, who fight a CIA-backed guerilla war against the Sandinista government throughout the 1980s.

[edit] 1980–1989

1980 – Iran. Operation Eagle Claw. On April 26, 1980, President Carter reported the use of six U.S. transport planes and eight helicopters in an unsuccessful attempt to rescue the American hostages in Iran.

1980 - El Salvador — The Archbishop of San Salvador, Óscar Romero, pleads with President Carter "Christian to Christian" to stop aiding the military government slaughtering his people. Carter refuses. Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader Roberto D’Aubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war, with the peasants in the hills fighting against the military government. Death squads roam the countryside, committing atrocities like that of El Mazote in 1982, where they massacre between 700 and 1000 men, women and children. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed.

1981 – El Salvador. After a guerrilla offensive against the government of El Salvador, additional US military advisers were sent to El Salvador, bringing the total to approximately 55, to assist in training government forces in counterinsurgency.[RL30172]

1981 – Libya. First Gulf of Sidra Incident On August 19, 1981, US planes based on the carrier USS Nimitz shot down two Libyan jets over the Gulf of Sidra after one of the Libyan jets had fired a heat-seeking missile. The United States periodically held freedom of navigation exercises in the Gulf of Sidra, claimed by Libya as territorial waters but considered international waters by the United States.[RL30172]

1982 – Sinai. On March 19, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of military personnel and equipment to participate in the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai. Participation had been authorized by the Multinational Force and Observers Resolution, Public Law 97-132.[RL30172]

1982 – Lebanon. Multinational Force in Lebanon. On August 21, 1982, President Reagan reported the dispatch of 800 Marines to serve in the multinational force to assist in the withdrawal of members of the Palestine Liberation force from Beirut. The Marines left September 20, 1982.[RL30172]

1982–83 – Lebanon. On September 29, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of 1200 marines to serve in a temporary multinational force to facilitate the restoration of Lebanese government sovereignty. On September 29, 1983, Congress passed the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution (P.L. 98-119) authorizing the continued participation for eighteen months.[RL30172]

1983 – Egypt. After a Libyan plane bombed a city in Sudan on March 18, 1983, and Sudan and Egypt appealed for assistance, the United States dispatched an AWACS electronic surveillance plane to Egypt.[RL30172]

1983 – Grenada. Operation Urgent Fury. Citing the increased threat of Soviet and Cuban influence and noting the development of an international airport following a bloodless Grenada coup d'état and alignment with the Soviets and Cuba, the U.S. invades the island nation of Grenada.[RL30172]

1983–89 – Honduras. In July 1983 the United States undertook a series of exercises in Honduras that some believed might lead to conflict with Nicaragua. On March 25, 1986, unarmed US military helicopters and crewmen ferried Honduran troops to the Nicaraguan border to repel Nicaraguan troops.[RL30172]

1983 – Chad. On August 8, 1983, President Reagan reported the deployment of two AWACS electronic surveillance planes and eight F-15 fighter planes and ground logistical support forces to assist Chad against Libyan and rebel forces.[RL30172]

1984 – Persian Gulf. On June 5, 1984, Saudi Arabian jet fighter planes, aided by intelligence from a US AWACS electronic surveillance aircraft and fueled by a U.S. KC-10 tanker, shot down two Iranian fighter planes over an area of the Persian Gulf proclaimed as a protected zone for shipping.[RL30172]

1985 – Italy. On October 10, 1985, US Navy pilots intercepted an Egyptian airliner and forced it to land in Sicily. The airliner was carrying the hijackers of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro who had killed an American citizen during the hijacking.[RL30172]

1986 – Libya. Action in the Gulf of Sidra (1986) On March 26, 1986, President Reagan reported on March 24 and 25, US forces, while engaged in freedom of navigation exercises around the Gulf of Sidra, had been attacked by Libyan missiles and the United States had responded with missiles.[RL30172]

1986 – Libya. Operation El Dorado Canyon. On April 16, 1986, President Reagan reported that U.S. air and naval forces had conducted bombing strikes on terrorist facilities and military installations in the Libyan capitol of Tripoli, claiming that Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi was responsible for a bomb attack at a German disco that killed two U.S. soldiers.[RL30172]

1986 - Haiti — Rising popular revolt in Haiti means that "Baby Doc" Duvalier will remain "President for Life" only if he has a short one. However, violence keeps the country in political turmoil for another four years. The CIA tries to strengthen the military by creating the National Intelligence Service (SIN), which suppresses popular revolt through torture and assassination.

1986 – Bolivia. U.S. Army personnel and aircraft assisted Bolivia in anti-drug operations.[RL30172]

1987 – Persian Gulf. USS Stark was struck on May 17 by two Exocet antiship missiles fired from an Iraqi F-1 Mirage during the Iran-Iraq War killing 37 US Navy sailors.

1987 – Persian Gulf. Operation Nimble Archer. Attacks on two Iranian oil platforms in the Persian Gulf by United States Navy forces on October 19. The attack was a response to Iran's October 16, 1987 attack on the MV Sea Isle City, a reflagged Kuwaiti oil tanker at anchor off Kuwait, with a Silkworm missile.

1987–88 – Persian Gulf. Operation Earnest Will - After the Iran-Iraq War (the Tanker War phase) resulted in several military incidents in the Persian Gulf, the United States increased US joint military forces operations in the Persian Gulf and adopted a policy of reflagging and escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers through the Persian Gulf to protect them from Iraqi and Iranian attacks. President Reagan reported that US ships had been fired upon or struck mines or taken other military action on September 21 (Iran Ajr), October 8, and October 19, 1987 and April 18 (Operation Praying Mantis), July 3, and July 14, 1988. The United States gradually reduced its forces after a cease-fire between Iran and Iraq on August 20, 1988.[RL30172] It was the largest naval convoy operation since World War II.[5]

1987–88 – Persian Gulf. Operation Prime Chance was a United States Special Operations Command operation intended to protect U.S. -flagged oil tankers from Iranian attack during the Iran-Iraq War. The operation took place roughly at the same time as Operation Earnest Will.

1988 – Persian Gulf. Operation Praying Mantis was the April 18, 1988 action waged by U.S. naval forces in retaliation for the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf and the subsequent damage to an American warship.

1988 – Honduras. Operation Golden Pheasant was an emergency deployment of U.S. troops to Honduras in 1988, as a result of threatening actions by the forces of the (then socialist) Nicaraguans.

1988 – USS Vincennes shoot down of Iran Air Flight 655

1988 – Panama. In mid-March and April 1988, during a period of instability in Panama and as the United States increased pressure on Panamanian head of state General Manuel Noriega to resign, the United States sent 1,000 troops to Panama, to "further safeguard the canal, US lives, property and interests in the area." The forces supplemented 10,000 US military personnel already in the Panama Canal Zone.[RL30172]

1989 – Libya. Second Gulf of Sidra Incident On January 4, 1989, two US Navy F-14 aircraft based on the USS John F. Kennedy shot down two Libyan jet fighters over the Mediterranean Sea about 70 miles north of Libya. The US pilots said the Libyan planes had demonstrated hostile intentions.[RL30172]

1989 – Panama. On May 11, 1989, in response to General Noriega's disregard of the results of the Panamanian election, President Bush ordered a brigade-sized force of approximately 1,900 troops to augment the estimated 1,000 U.S. forces already in the area.[RL30172]The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel Noriega. Noriega has been on the CIA's payroll since 1966, and has been transporting drugs with the CIA's knowledge since 1972.

1989 – Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru. Andean Initiative in War on Drugs. On September 15, 1989, President Bush announced that military and law enforcement assistance would be sent to help the Andean nations of Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru combat illicit drug producers and traffickers. By mid-September there were 50–100 US military advisers in Colombia in connection with transport and training in the use of military equipment, plus seven Special Forces teams of 2–12 persons to train troops in the three countries.[RL30172]

1989 – Philippines. Operation Classic Resolve. On December 2, 1989, President Bush reported that on December 1, Air Force fighters from Clark Air Base in Luzon had assisted the Aquino government to repel a coup attempt. In addition, 100 marines were sent from U.S. Naval Base Subic Bay to protect the United States Embassy in Manila.[RL30172]

1989–90 – Panama. Operation Just Cause. On December 21, 1989, President Bush reported that he had ordered US military forces to Panama to protect the lives of American citizens and bring General Noriega to justice. By February 13, 1990, all the invasion forces had been withdrawn.[RL30172] Around 200 Panamanian civilians were reported killed. The Panamanian head of state, General Manuel Noriega, was captured and brought to the U.S.

[edit] 1990–1999

1990 – Liberia. On August 6, 1990, President Bush reported that a reinforced rifle company had been sent to provide additional security to the US Embassy in Monrovia, and that helicopter teams had evacuated U.S. citizens from Liberia.[RL30172]

1990 – Saudi Arabia. On August 9, 1990, President Bush reported that he had ordered the forward deployment of substantial elements of the US armed forces into the Persian Gulf region to help defend Saudi Arabia after the August 2 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. On November 16, 1990, he reported the continued buildup of the forces to ensure an adequate offensive military option.[RL30172] American hostages being held in Iran.[RL30172]

1991 – Persian Gulf War. Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. On January 16, 1991, U.S. forces attacked Iraqi forces and military targets in Iraq and Kuwait in conjunction with a coalition of allies and under United Nations Security Council resolutions. Combat operations ended on February 28, 1991.[RL30172]

1991 – Iraq. On May 17, 1991, President Bush stated that the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people had necessitated a limited introduction of U.S. forces into northern Iraq for emergency relief purposes.[RL30172]

1991 – Zaire. On September 25–27, 1991, after widespread looting and rioting broke out in Kinshasa, Air Force C-141s transported 100 Belgian troops and equipment into Kinshasa. American planes also carried 300 French troops into the Central African Republic and hauled evacuated American citizens.[RL30172]

1991–96 – Iraq. Operation Provide Comfort. Delivery of humanitarian relief and military protection for Kurds fleeing their homes in northern Iraq, by a small Allied ground force based in Turkey.

1992 – Sierra Leone. Operation Silver Anvil. Following the April 29 coup that overthrew President Joseph Saidu Momoh, a United States European Command (USEUCOM) Joint Special Operations Task Force evacuated 438 people (including 42 third-country nationals) on May 3 .Two Air Mobility Command (AMC) C-141s flew 136 people from Freetown, Sierra Leone, to the Rhein-Main Air Base in Germany and nine C-130 sorties carried another 302 people to Dakar, Senegal.[RL30172]

1992–96 – Bosnia and Herzegovina. Operation Provide Promise was a humanitarian relief operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Yugoslav Wars, from July 2, 1992, to January 9, 1996, which made it the longest running humanitarian airlift in history.[6]

1992 – Kuwait. On August 3, 1992, the United States began a series of military exercises in Kuwait, following Iraqi refusal to recognize a new border drawn up by the United Nations and refusal to cooperate with UN inspection teams.[RL30172]

1992–2003 – Iraq. Iraqi No-Fly Zones The U.S. together with the United Kingdom declares and enforces "no fly zones" over the majority of sovereign Iraqi airspace, prohibiting Iraqi flights in zones in southern Iraq and northern Iraq, and conducting aerial reconnaissance and bombings. (See also Operation Northern Watch, Operation Southern Watch) [RL30172]

1992–95 – Somalia. Operation Restore Hope. Somali Civil War On December 10, 1992, President Bush reported that he had deployed US armed forces to Somalia in response to a humanitarian crisis and a UN Security Council Resolution. The operation came to an end on May 4, 1993. US forces continued to participate in the successor United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II). (See also Battle of Mogadishu)[RL30172]

1993 – Macedonia. On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 US soldiers to the Republic of Macedonia to participate in the UN Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.[RL30172]

1994–95 – Haiti. Operation Uphold Democracy. U.S. ships had begun embargo against Haiti. Up to 20,000 US military troops were later deployed to Haiti.[RL30172]

1994 – Macedonia. On April 19, 1994, President Clinton reported that the US contingent in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had been increased by a reinforced company of 200 personnel.[RL30172]

1995 – Bosnia. Operation Deliberate Force. NATO bombing of Bosnian Serbs.[RL30172]

1996 – Liberia. Operation Assured Response. On April 11, 1996, President Clinton reported that on April 9, 1996 due to the "deterioration of the security situation and the resulting threat to American citizens" in Liberia he had ordered U.S. military forces to evacuate from that country "private U.S. citizens and certain third-country nationals who had taken refuge in the U.S. Embassy compound...."[RL30172]

1996 – Central African Republic. Operation Quick Response. On May 23, 1996, President Clinton reported the deployment of US military personnel to Bangui, Central African Republic, to conduct the evacuation from that country of "private U.S. citizens and certain U.S. government employees", and to provide "enhanced security for the American Embassy in Bangui."[RL30172] United States Marine Corps elements of Joint Task Force Assured Response, responding in nearby Liberia, provided security to the embassy and evacuated 448 people, including between 190 and 208 Americans. The last Marines left Bangui on June 22.

1997 – Albania. Operation Silver Wake. On March 13, 1997, U.S. military forces were used to evacuate certain U.S. government employees and private U.S. citizens from Tirana, Albania.[RL30172]

1997 – Congo and Gabon. On March 27, 1997, President Clinton reported on March 25, 1997, a standby evacuation force of U.S. military personnel had been deployed to Congo and Gabon to provide enhanced security and to be available for any necessary evacuation operation.[RL30172]

1997 – Sierra Leone. On May 29 and May 30, 1997, U.S. military personnel were deployed to Freetown, Sierra Leone, to prepare for and undertake the evacuation of certain U.S. government employees and private U.S. citizens.[RL30172]

1997 – Cambodia. On July 11, 1997, In an effort to ensure the security of American citizens in Cambodia during a period of domestic conflict there, a Task Force of about 550 U.S. military personnel were deployed at Utapao Air Base in Thailand for possible evacuations. [RL30172]

1998 – Iraq. Operation Desert Fox. U.S. and British forces conduct a major four-day bombing campaign from December 16–19, 1998 on Iraqi targets.[RL30172]

1998 – Guinea-Bissau. Operation Shepherd Venture. On June 10, 1998, in response to an army mutiny in Guinea-Bissau endangering the US Embassy, President Clinton deployed a standby evacuation force of US military personnel to Dakar, Senegal, to evacuate from the city of Bissau.[RL30172]

1998–99 – Kenya and Tanzania. US military personnel were deployed to Nairobi, Kenya, to coordinate the medical and disaster assistance related to the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. [RL30172]

1998 – Afghanistan and Sudan. Operation Infinite Reach. On August 20, air strikes were used against two suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical factory in Sudan.[RL30172]

1998 – Liberia. On September 27, 1998 America deployed a stand-by response and evacuation force of 30 US military personnel to increase the security force at the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia. [1] [RL30172]

1999–2001 - East Timor. Limited number of U.S. military forces deployed with the United Nations-mandated International Force for East Timor restore peace to East Timor.[RL30172]

1999 – Serbia. Operation Allied Force. NATO's bombing of Serbia in the Kosovo Conflict.[RL30172]

[edit] 2000–2009

2000 – Sierra Leone. On May 12, 2000 a US Navy patrol craft deployed to Sierra Leone to support evacuation operations from that country if needed.[RL30172]

2000 – Yemen. On October 12, 2000, after the USS Cole attack in the port of Aden, Yemen, military personnel were deployed to Aden.[RL30172]

2000 – East Timor. On February 25, 2000, a small number of U.S. military personnel were deployed to support the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). [RL30172]

2001 – On April 1, 2001, a mid-air collision between a United States Navy EP-3E ARIES II signals surveillance aircraft and a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) J-8II interceptor fighter jet resulted in an international dispute between the United States and the People's Republic of China called the Hainan Island incident.

2001 – War in Afghanistan. The War on Terrorism begins with Operation Enduring Freedom. On October 7, 2001, US Armed Forces invade Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks and "begin combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda terrorists and their Taliban supporters."[RL30172]

2002 – Yemen. On November 3, 2002, an American MQ-1 Predator fired a Hellfire missile at a car in Yemen killing Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an al-Qaeda leader thought to be responsible for the USS Cole bombing.[RL30172]

2002 – Philippines. OEF-Philippines. January 2002 U.S. "combat-equipped and combat support forces" have been deployed to the Philippines to train with, assist and advise the Philippines' Armed Forces in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."[RL30172]

2002 – Côte d'Ivoire. On September 25, 2002, in response to a rebellion in Côte d'Ivoire, US military personnel went into Côte d'Ivoire to assist in the evacuation of American citizens from Bouake.[7]

[RL30172]

2003–2010 – War in Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom. March 20, 2003. The United States leads a coalition that includes Britain, Australia and Spain to invade Iraq with the stated goal being "to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States."[RL30172]

2003 – Liberia. Second Liberian Civil War. On June 9, 2003, President Bush reported that on June 8 he had sent about 35 US Marines into Monrovia, Liberia, to help secure the US Embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania, and to aid in any necessary evacuation from either Liberia or Mauritania.[RL30172]

2003 – Georgia and Djibouti. "US combat equipped and support forces" had been deployed to Georgia and Djibouti to help in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."[8]

2004 – Haiti. 2004 Haïti rebellion occurs. The US sent first sent 55 combat equipped military personnel to augment the US Embassy security forces there and to protect American citizens and property in light. Later 200 additional US combat-equipped, military personnel were sent to prepare the way for a UN Multinational Interim Force, MINUSTAH.[RL30172]

2004 – War on Terrorism: US anti-terror related activities were underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea.[9]

2004–present: Drone attacks in Pakistan

2005–06 – Pakistan. President Bush deploys troops from US Army Air Cav Brigades to provide Humanitarian relief to far remote villages in the Kashmir mountain ranges of Pakistan stricken by a massive earthquake.

2006 – Lebanon. US Marine Detachment, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit[citation needed], begins evacuation of US citizens willing to leave the country in the face of a likely ground invasion by Israel and continued fighting between Hezbollah and the Israeli military.[10][11]

2007 – Somalia. Battle of Ras Kamboni. On January 8, 2007, while the conflict between the Islamic Courts Union and the Transitional Federal Government continues, an AC-130 gunship conducts an aerial strike on a suspected Al-Qaeda operative, along with other Islamist fighters, on Badmadow Island near Ras Kamboni in southern Somalia.[citation needed]

2008 – South Ossetia, Georgia. Helped Georgia humanitarian aid,[12] helped to transport Georgian forces from Iraq during the conflict. In the past, the US has provided training and weapons to Georgia.

[edit] 2010–Present

2010 - War in Iraq. Operation New Dawn. On February 17, 2010, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that as of September 1, 2010, the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom" would be replaced by "Operation New Dawn". This coincides with the reduction of American troops to 50,000.

2011 - Libya. Operation Odyssey Dawn. Coalition forces enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 with bombings of Libyan forces.

2011 - War on Terrorism. Osama Bin Laden is killed by U.S. military forces in Pakistan.

2011 - Drone strikes on al-Shabab militants begin in Somalia.[13] This marks the 6th nation in which such strikes have been carried out, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Libya.

I counted a total of 122 wars or military engagements by the U.S. since the end of WW2, a period from 1945 - 2011, or 66 years duration. Thus, the U.S. has been involved in almost two wars or military engagements per year since the end of WW2.

You wrote, "If you see a country devoted to conquering the world gearing up to conquer its neighbors, the issue gets complicated." Exactly which of the countries listed in the above military conflicts could even plausibly have had both the intent and capability of "conquering the world"? About the only two plausible candidates fitting this description are the old Soviet Union and the United States. In fact, since the dissolution of the old Soviet empire, the only remaining candidate for this role is the United States. The U.S. government spends about as much money on its military as the rest of the world combined, controls at least 800 military bases around the world, controls thousands of deliverable nuclear warheads and other weapons of mass destruction, and has spies planted in at least 60 countries around the world. It is presently engaged in military conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, and has repeatedly threatened Iran with horrific military attacks ("All options are on the table"). Last I checked, none of these countries is either devoted to or capable of conquering the world. Insofar as there exists any country that has the capability and intent of controlling as much of the world as possible, that country is the United States. So the criterion you have listed is in fact a perfectly good justification for other countries to start launching attacks against the United States, not for the U.S. to launch attacks against other countries. Somehow, I have never seen this conclusion reached by any self-identified objectivist.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

But since the role of general principles and exceptions has been a major interest of mine since college -- I have a lengthy section on the subject in my forthcoming book, Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism, from Cambridge University Press -- permit me to offer this summary.

I don’t recall you announcing this book deal before. When is it due? I gather your hedonist memoir is on the backburner.

My book was accepted for publication by Cambridge nearly two years ago. It was accepted "as is"; a contract was signed, and no revisions were requested. I was never very happy with certain parts of the book, however, so in my infinite wisdom I decided to undertake some major rewrites, including two entirely new chapters. This was all fine with Cambridge, but without adequate financing the revised version took much longer than I expected. I will be submitting the final manuscript in around two weeks. I don't know yet when it will be published.

If I knew then what I know now, I would not have gone to all the extra trouble.

Work on my memoirs is hit and miss, as I get the time. This is something I would like to market to publishers only after the manuscript is completed. This will be the most marketable book I will ever write, and I don't want to get boxed into a deadline that I must rush to meet, or cannot meet at all. I would like to make some decent money from the memoirs (Sex, Drugs, and Philosophy: In Pursuit of a Hedonistic Life), and this is a distinct possibility if I take the time to write the book as it should be written.

Ghs

I'd call it Hedo Hollywood or Hollywood Hedonist.

--Brant

if you need my advice, turn on the light!

[George H. Smith]

Work on my memoirs is hit and miss, as I get the time. This is something I would like to market to publishers only after the manuscript is completed. This will be the most marketable book I will ever write, and I don't want to get boxed into a deadline that I must rush to meet, or cannot meet at all. I would like to make some decent money from the memoirs (Sex, Drugs, and Philosophy: In Pursuit of a Hedonistic Life), and this is a distinct possibility if I take the time to write the book as it should be written. Ghs

I'd call it Hedo Hollywood or Hollywood Hedonist. --Brant if you need my advice, turn on the light!

Your advice is best read in the dark.

How about: Mondo Philosophy: How Reason Nearly Ruined My Life!

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Martin, geo-politico relationships are power relationships and always have been. As U.S. power wanes for economic reasons over the coming years its overseas' involvements will wane too. Unfortunately, it's easier to oppress its own people than those half way around the world. This will get worse. The natural moral self-righteousness of Americans generally, so obvious in WWII and so helpful for interventionism, was somewhat camouflaged by the seeming necessity of the Cold War. With the end of that the camouflage has dropped away. My personal objection to interventionism is the stupid people do it--stupid people like Bush and his sidekick veep. Look at the sundry costs of those Middle Eastern wars! Vietnam was a disaster. That's enough reason. I don't have to be an anarchist.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Work on my memoirs is hit and miss, as I get the time. This is something I would like to market to publishers only after the manuscript is completed. This will be the most marketable book I will ever write, and I don't want to get boxed into a deadline that I must rush to meet, or cannot meet at all. I would like to make some decent money from the memoirs (Sex, Drugs, and Philosophy: In Pursuit of a Hedonistic Life), and this is a distinct possibility if I take the time to write the book as it should be written. Ghs

I'd call it Hedo Hollywood or Hollywood Hedonist. --Brant if you need my advice, turn on the light!

Your advice is best read in the dark.

How about: Mondo Philosophy: How Reason Nearly Ruined My Life!

Ghs

Speaking seriously, I think it would read a little better if you dropped the comma after "Drugs." The cover could be a montage of photos from that era respecting the people and area and things you would be writing about. Some professional more creative than me might come up with something else really boffo.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If it were up to me, I would not have had the USA take on dollarizing the world at the Bretton Woods convention. I understand why they did it, though. The idea was to make the world such a place that no country would ever be able to do what Germany did twice in the two world wars.

It didn't work out as peacefully as was imagined.

But I'm not going to say this was motivated only by evil empire blah blah blah and that the hidden agenda of the USA government was (or is) to conquer the world. That's nuts. I do agree that there were a lot of sleazy crony capitalists who took (and take) advantage of this situation.

And people who read me know what I think of the USA government getting in bed with bloody dictators and training their secret police.

Michael

[Martin Radwin]

Martin, geo-politico relationships are power relationships and always have been. As U.S. power wanes for economic reasons over the coming years its overseas' involvements will wane too. Unfortunately, it's easier to oppress its own people than those half way around the world. This will get worse. The natural moral self-righteousness of Americans generally, so obvious in WWII and so helpful for interventionism, was somewhat camouflaged by the seeming necessity of the Cold War. With the end of that the camouflage has dropped away. My personal objection to interventionism is the stupid people do it--stupid people like Bush and his sidekick veep. Look at the sundry costs of those Middle Eastern wars! Vietnam was a disaster. That's enough reason. I don't have to be an anarchist.

--Brant

Brant,

I agree with you about the natural moral self-righteousness that has long been a part of American culture. This American exceptionalism, the idea that the U.S. is morally superior to the rest of the world and has the right to dictate to the rest of the world how it should live, is really now a fundamental moral justification for U.S. foreign policy. And I think you're right that nothing is likely to reverse this trend other than America's economic decline, which will at some point just make it impossible for the U.S. government to afford to continue spending a trillion dollars a year on its military and fighting six different wars at the same time.

Regarding your statement that "My personal objection to interventionism is the stupid people do it", do you really think that U.S. government interventionism in the affairs of other nations could actually produce good results if only done by really smart people? To me, this is analogous to the idea that, if only the government were run by really smart people, it could do a good job running the domestic economy. How is it that objectivists or objectivist sympathizers, who believe in an absolutely laissez faire market system with no government intervention into the domestic economy, so often believe that this same government is somehow competent to run the affairs of the rest of the world? To me, the exact opposite is true. The government is even less capable of intervening in foreign countries than in intervening in the domestic economy. If it's not capable of running this country's medical care system, it's certainly even less capable of reorganizing Afghani society according to its wishes. Foreign policy decisions made by government are generally even more irrational and destructive than its domestic policy decisions.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

Martin, geo-politico relationships are power relationships and always have been. As U.S. power wanes for economic reasons over the coming years its overseas' involvements will wane too. Unfortunately, it's easier to oppress its own people than those half way around the world. This will get worse. The natural moral self-righteousness of Americans generally, so obvious in WWII and so helpful for interventionism, was somewhat camouflaged by the seeming necessity of the Cold War. With the end of that the camouflage has dropped away. My personal objection to interventionism is the stupid people do it--stupid people like Bush and his sidekick veep. Look at the sundry costs of those Middle Eastern wars! Vietnam was a disaster. That's enough reason. I don't have to be an anarchist.

--Brant

Brant,

I agree with you about the natural moral self-righteousness that has long been a part of American culture. This American exceptionalism, the idea that the U.S. is morally superior to the rest of the world and has the right to dictate to the rest of the world how it should live, is really now a fundamental moral justification for U.S. foreign policy. And I think you're right that nothing is likely to reverse this trend other than America's economic decline, which will at some point just make it impossible for the U.S. government to afford to continue spending a trillion dollars a year on its military and fighting six different wars at the same time.

Regarding your statement that "My personal objection to interventionism is the stupid people do it", do you really think that U.S. government interventionism in the affairs of other nations could actually produce good results if only done by really smart people? To me, this is analogous to the idea that, if only the government were run by really smart people, it could do a good job running the domestic economy. How is it that objectivists or objectivist sympathizers, who believe in an absolutely laissez faire market system with no government intervention into the domestic economy, so often believe that this same government is somehow competent to run the affairs of the rest of the world? To me, the exact opposite is true. The government is even less capable of intervening in foreign countries than in intervening in the domestic economy. If it's not capable of running this country's medical care system, it's certainly even less capable of reorganizing Afghani society according to its wishes. Foreign policy decisions made by government are generally even more irrational and destructive than its domestic policy decisions.

Martin

I must agree with you. For instance, pretending I am President of the U.S. I imagine doing smart things, even great things, and then I imagine that I must rather do mediocre things because I can't expect the next fellow to have my, cough, cough, genius and continue in my vein. In fact, as the country prospers under my, cough, cough, rule, it becomes stronger and stronger so when I leave some SOB comes along and spends the collective wealth on all the b.s. I avoided because I was so smart.

Thank God I don't have the political gift of grab and gab and a billionaire father and am not nor will I ever be the genius in the White House who saved the world and now all the people love me! I do truly think the world is getting better and better for most of its peoples, with gross exceptions not unknown to history generally, and I expect that will continue with or without me unless that asteroid or comet hits--or, something I am concerned about now, the availability of energy. If it ever costs more energy than the energy you get we are going to be in deep do do. The oil wars we have had and are having may be next to nothing to what might be coming.

--Brant

[anthony]

I haven't noticed mention of foreign aid by the USA to the world.

I believe this is also interventionism.

Force and altruism, altruism and force, they are never far apart.

[Brant Gaede]

I haven't noticed mention of foreign aid by the USA to the world.

I believe this is also interventionism.

Force and altruism, altruism and force, they are never far apart.

Foreign aid was on the public mind in the 60s and 70s but now has faded into just another part of U.S. foreign policy. We give a lot to Egypt and Israel. Today it seems it goes through third parties like the IMF. Yeah, it's interventionism. Did you know the U.S. is backstopping European banks and thus the euro? We are exporting our price inflation, and our capital. I think those dollars will eventually come home--in a rush.

--Brant

[anthony]

I haven't noticed mention of foreign aid by the USA to the world. I believe this is also interventionism. Force and altruism, altruism and force, they are never far apart.

Foreign aid was on the public mind in the 60s and 70s but now has faded into just another part of U.S. foreign policy. We give a lot to Egypt and Israel. Today it seems it goes through third parties like the IMF. Yeah, it's interventionism. Did you know the U.S. is backstopping European banks and thus the euro? We are exporting our price inflation, and our capital. I think those dollars will eventually come home--in a rush. --Brant

All I know is that if I were an American taxpayer, I'd be seething. (I still am, anyway

Here in "Africa" leaders make a game of knocking the US at every chance, then hauling out the begging-bowl and paying a visit to the White House. The hell with them. Let us sink, til we learn to swim.

I am not even in favour of US financial support for Israel - if it's seen as charitable or obligatory, not as self-interested.

It would be presumptuous of me to advise anything - however, there could be irrationality also in the US pulling up the drawbridge, and turning to isolationism. There has to be a 'third way,' and that involves objective values.

Tony

[Libertarian Muslim]

Brant, I agree with you about the natural moral self-righteousness that has long been a part of American culture. This American exceptionalism, the idea that the U.S. is morally superior to the rest of the world and has the right to dictate to the rest of the world how it should live, is really now a fundamental moral justification for U.S. foreign policy. And I think you're right that nothing is likely to reverse this trend other than America's economic decline, which will at some point just make it impossible for the U.S. government to afford to continue spending a trillion dollars a year on its military and fighting six different wars at the same time.

A good point Martin.

And now for some very uncomfortable questions.

If an American economic decline so big would stop the US continuing down the same road and would stop it intervening, then is it such a bad thing for the world? No doubt it would put a lot of Americans in economic hardship, but are they not responsible for their own government's actions as it is a democracy? Is their apathy and lack of attention to their government's behavior an excuse for not stopping their government or should they wear that responsibility as they have benefited from their government's actions economically whilst it was profitable to do so.

Let's make it easier and put in the context of another nation because sometimes it's hard not to be biased.. If it had been the Soviet Union doing the same thing with interventionism and an economic decline was the only way to stop them, then is that so bad?

[Brant Gaede]

Brant, I agree with you about the natural moral self-righteousness that has long been a part of American culture. This American exceptionalism, the idea that the U.S. is morally superior to the rest of the world and has the right to dictate to the rest of the world how it should live, is really now a fundamental moral justification for U.S. foreign policy. And I think you're right that nothing is likely to reverse this trend other than America's economic decline, which will at some point just make it impossible for the U.S. government to afford to continue spending a trillion dollars a year on its military and fighting six different wars at the same time.

A good point Martin.

And now for some very uncomfortable questions.

If an American economic decline so big would stop the US continuing down the same road and would stop it intervening, then is it such a bad thing for the world? No doubt it would put a lot of Americans in economic hardship, but are they not responsible for their own government's actions as it is a democracy? Is their apathy and lack of attention to their government's behavior an excuse for not stopping their government or should they wear that responsibility as they have benefited from their government's actions economically whilst it was profitable to do so.

Let's make it easier and put in the context of another nation because sometimes it's hard not to be biased.. If it had been the Soviet Union doing the same thing with interventionism and an economic decline was the only way to stop them, then is that so bad?

We are not the Soviet Union. They were the bad guys and they lost. Interventionism is neither good nor bad per se. It depends on who is doing what to whom for why.

--Brant

[Libertarian Muslim]

We are not the Soviet Union. They were the bad guys and they lost. Interventionism is neither good nor bad per se. It depends on who is doing what to whom for why.

--Brant

It's not good or bad? Tell that to the people who are victims of US interventionism..

[Selene]

No doubt it would put a lot of Americans in economic hardship, but are they not responsible for their own government's actions as it is a democracy?

LM:

I understand your point, but as a point of information, we are not a democracy, but a "representative republic." If we were a democracy, the psychopathic Al Gore would have been President in 2000.

Adam

[anthony]

A good point Martin. And now for some very uncomfortable questions. If an American economic decline so big would stop the US continuing down the same road and would stop it intervening, then is it such a bad thing for the world? No doubt it would put a lot of Americans in economic hardship, but are they not responsible for their own government's actions as it is a democracy? Is their apathy and lack of attention to their government's behavior an excuse for not stopping their government or should they wear that responsibility as they have benefited from their government's actions economically whilst it was profitable to do so. Let's make it easier and put in the context of another nation because sometimes it's hard not to be biased.. If it had been the Soviet Union doing the same thing with interventionism and an economic decline was the only way to stop them, then is that so bad?

Excuse me, but where did you get the idea that the USA has profited from involvement abroad?

It is the same old "it's for the oil" argument. So show us the oil - perhaps 'looted' from Iraq, for instance.

Nope, the US has - largely - been a victim of its "I am my brother's keeper" mindset.

And yes - it would be "so bad". Actions should be initiated by principle, not forced by "economic decline."