ARCHIVE ARTICLES

 

 
The Only Moral Justification For War Today Is Oil


America is in the Middle East for two major reasons. The main one is to defend Israel's theocratic right to Arab land. The second is to protect Europe and Japan from an oil shortage.

We get a lot of oil from the Middle East, too, of course, and that is our only moral excuse to be in the Middle East at all. As I said on November 17, 2001, in THE ONLY REAL CHOICE IS BETWEEN NATIONAL SELF-INTEREST AND COLONIALISM, a country's only MORAL right to interfere in the affairs of other countries is when its OWN national interest is involved.

I am no pacifist. If we went into any OPEC country to destroy OPEC, I might just be for it.

Liberals are for using American force for other peoples' benefit. Conservatives are for using American force for another set of reasons, but they also insist that it be used always and only for the benefit of others.

So the one thing any "foreign policy compromise" between conservatives and liberals is going to start with is that that policy will not benefit, "We the People of the United States of America."

For me, the only time Middle Eastern force sounds worthwhile is when it might break OPEC's hold over the US.

According to liberals and conservatives, Americans have no right to our own country, but oil sheiks have "Sovereign Rights" to the oil they happened to be sitting on when we found a use for it.

Liberals and conservatives agree we must share our high living standard, which is a result of our political wisdom, with floods of immigrants. But we should fight to the death for the high living standard of oil potentates and Europeans.

So when it comes to TAKING enough oil to break OPEC's power OVER THE UNITED STATES -- not over Europe -- I might support that.

That is the one thing liberals and conservatives agree would be morally Evil. Which makes me all the more certain that it's right.

 

If Both sides Are Wrong, Their Compromises Are No Better


In 1939, Communist fanatics ruled the Soviet Union. In 1939, Anti-Communist extremists ruled in Germany, Italy and Japan. Fanatics on one extreme ruled one side, fanatics on the other extreme ruled the other.

So they compromised. In late August of 1939, these two totalitarian states signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact. That Pact divided Poland between Germany and Russia.

The problem was that both fascists and Communists were extremists. By definition, a compromise between those extremists should lead to truth and peace, right?

But the Nazi-Soviet agreement led right into World War II.

So when people say that a compromise is the solution to problems between extremists, it just ain't so.

 

 

Liberals Are Bad, Respectable Conservatives Are Bad, But Their Compromises Are Worse

President Bush needed a billion dollar appropriation. So he asked Congress for it.

Bush had to veto the spending bill that came back to him. It amounted to FIVE billion dollars.

This vetoed spending package included huge programs added to please liberals, especially AIDS expenditures. It also included more money for Homeland Security and the military to please conservatives.

It was a compromise.

Ah, that magic word! It conjures up the idea that reasonable men with wide ideological differences are finally coming together for the public good. This five billion dollar boondoggle shows that in the real world, a compromise between liberals and conservatives produces the worst of both worlds.

'Twas ever thus.

People who use that word "compromise" as a magic incantation get lost in the idea that it represents a position between two extremes. They completely ignore the fact that the two extremes represented are BOTH bad. As a result, compromise is the worst of both worlds.

A perfect example of this kind of moderation is moderate Republicanism. The Republican Party establishment represents big business and a big military. Liberals represent the idea that all the money in the country should be turned over to college professors and other "intellectuals." These "intellectuals" will then divvy out all the money and impose whatever rules they think society should obey.

So when they compromise, these two groups come up with a half cut for each side. Conservatives get lots of money for their military contractors and Democrats get the new regulations and the higher expenditures their social experts demand.

Take a look in your mind at what "compromise" looks like in a real Congress. Do you really believe one side represents a bunch of evil ideologues and the other stands for truth? They are all there to get what their sponsors want.

A "compromise" is the middle of the road because it gives away everything each group of lobbyists want.

This split between Republican power-brokers and liberal power-brokers is what we call moderate Republicanism.


Republican Moderation Is The Ultimate Compromise


The Republican Party exists to obtain 1) benefits for large corporations and 2) mucho, mucho military expenditure. In hard core, real-world politics, the rumors are true. In return for more bombers and a macho foreign policy, Republicans are happy to let liberals have their racial quotas, their busing, and anything else they want on the social policy side.

So the real meaning of "middle of the road" in America is that both the military-industrial establishment and the education-welfare establishment get what they really insist on. There is no room in this compromise for the people to get anything.

Washington, DC, took over America to an unimagined extent in the period between 1953 and 1977. During two-thirds of that critical period moderate Republicans held the White House. That period began with Eisenhower creating the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and ended with Reagan being defeated by Ford at the Republican Convention Of 1976.

Liberals sponsored most of the Washington power grabs between 1953 and 1977.

But it was moderate Republicans who prevented any real opposition from forming against them.

Moderates Are Total Champions of the Military-Industrial Complex


"The military-industrial complex" is a term coined by President Eisenhower. It is pointed to today as the phrase a great moderate used to warn against the right.

As you might suspect, the military-industrial complex never had a better all-out champion than Dwight David Eisenhower.

Europe came out of World War II in ruins and the United States had to provide for its defense against the Soviet Union. But by 1959 Europe was back on its feet. There were far more people in Western Europe than in the Soviet bloc and they were far, far richer than the USSR and Eastern Europe.

So by 1959 it was time for Europe to take on a fair share of its own defense and give American taxpayers, not to mention young American draftees, a break.

But if American military expenditures went down, that meant the American military-industrial complex Republicans were devoted to would be cut.

So in 1959, Europe said it didn't want to do all that drafting and spending. It wanted the US to do all the drafting and spending and defending while Europe remained a military welfare case.

Eisenhower went to Europe personally and guaranteed them that this boondoggle would not only continue, it would increase. To this day, the idea that Europe should have to protect itself is considered the height of Evil American Provincialism.

But it wasn't liberals or conservatives who made the decision to put Europe on a permanent military dole. It was that denouncer of the "military-industrial complex," the moderate Republican Dwight Eisenhower.

 

 

Home | Current Articles | Article Archive | About Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links | Privacy Policy

MENU

Home

Current Articles

Article Archive

Whitaker's World View

World View Archives

About Bob Whitaker

Contact Bob

Links

Privacy Policy


Current Issue
Issue: Aug. 24, 2002
Editor: Virgil H. Huston, Jr.
© 2001 WhitakerOnLine.org


Email List
Sign up for our email list to be notified of site updates:
E-Mail:

© Copyright 2001, 2002. All rights reserved. Contact: bob@whitakeronline.org