|
|
|
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
|
|
|