Interventionism: Suicide for the American Republic

Five Myths About Intervention

by Karl Kammler

Two of the most prosperous nations in the world are Sweden and Switzerland. They mind their own business and amazingly no one wants to blow up their commercial jets. They also don't have a huge national debt resulting from attempts to be global policemen. Despite these clear examples of successful isolationism, there are countless kosher conservatives telling us that we must support "interventionism" and get even further involved in the Third World, even though our needless support of Israel is responsible for ALL our problems with the Muslim world.

Consider the five "myths of interventionism" listed below. There are surely more than just five, but these are the ones parroted most often by Americans, who have bought the usual pro-Israel propaganda.


Myth One: "America has interests overseas."

Liberals and conservatives both claim that America has certain key overseas interests, which they rarely define except for the two obvious sacred cows of American politics: oil and Israel. They write themselves blank checks on America's finite treasure and precious blood, and the only beneficiaries are the multinational corporations, international bankers, powerful ethnic lobbies (such as the Israeli lobby), and liberal "do-gooders" who pour our money into Third World countries like a madman trying to change the ocean by pouring buckets of fresh water into it.

America's true, paramount interest is maintaining our national sovereignty and independence as a recognizable, distinct nation. This can only be accomplished by strict control of our borders. Unfortunately this is the one thing that our sell-out politicians have deliberately failed to do.

The typical empire, before its final collapse, neglects the home country and focuses obsessively on foreign lands. Our politicians are following in the same footsteps as the last Roman emperors.


Myth Two: "We spread freedom to the people of the world"

At home, the imperial character of our foreign policy grows the government, magnifying the power of the executive branch in particular. The resentment toward American interference ultimately results in armed resistance against us. Americans had to fight rebels in the Philippines when we occupied that country, and our attempt to force democracy on Vietnam with our military locked us into a war of attrition that lasted thirteen years over there. Our conflict with the Muslim world is demanding more troops on the ground in more countries, and another war of attrition has begun. A vicious circle is born in which the nation must dedicate ever more power and resources to try to suppress foreign nationals, who want us out of their countries. While we supposedly deliver freedom to others, we become less free at home.

Few stop to think that the foreign policy elites like Condoleeza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz say and do things to perpetuate their own jobs. Too many people actually trust the government. The "enemy of the month" is currently Iraq; previously it was the Noriega and the Panamese, Qadafi and the Libyans, Russians, and the Germans before them. The script never really changes. There is always a 'boogeyman' out there, from Kaiser Wilhelm, to Adolf Hitler, to Osama bin Laden, to Saddam Hussein.


Myth Three: "The world is dangerous, and our enemies will attack this country!"

Americans who advocate an interventionist foreign policy tend to put America at the center of the world. They seem to think that every country on this planet can't wait to cross the ocean and attack us. Why do the interventionists consider America something so coveted by the rest of the world? Why wouldn't the "enemy of the month" invade Australia or Brazil instead? Why would any country attack or invade a massive nation situated between two oceans that has a large, heavily armed population?

Foreign countries desperately try to stay away from the United States, not come toward us. Serbia, for example, did not attack the United States or even display any kind of interest in Americans. The United States attacked Serbia because Bill Clinton needed a distraction from one of his many scandals. Iraq also never attacked the United States. The Iraqis would have been happy to sell us Kuwaiti oil at market prices. The availability of oil was never threatened by Iraq's occupation of Kuwait, but all our politicians told us different. We were fed nothing but lies about Iraq when the real issue was that Israel did not want Kuwait's oil profits going into the Iraqi military. Israel has 200 H-bombs and they basically ordered our politicians to wage war on Iraq so that they could maintain their nuclear monopoly. Americans constantly poke around in other nations' backyards. Foreign countries rightfully resent this --they don't want the U.S. acting as judge, jury and executioner over them.

Interventionism is more dangerous to the continuance of this nation than any potential series of terrorist attacks. Kosher conservatives dismiss any opponent of the new American Imperialism as a "crackpot," an "America hater" or a "terrorist sympathizer." Say anything different from the official globalist cheer-leading chants and you are accused of trying to damage the country.

Interventionists cannot see that the more America meddles overseas, the greater the chance that something tragic will happen. They propose ever more bold and dangerous military adventures, as if they think the United States is invincible. Then, in the next breath they tell you how dangerous the world is and how precarious America's position is, which contradicts the whole invincibility aura. Suddenly a superpower has to worry about countries like North Korea, whose average citizen barely subsists on a bowl of rice a day.


Myth Four: "America is a superpower."

One would think that America's "superpower status" would help alleviate the interventionists' fears of encirclement. Are we a superpower? Are there any other indicators of superpower status besides a huge military? Quality of life, maybe? How about our infrastructure, or the level of education of our population?

Why do these advocates of military adventurism think that it's okay for Americans to be taxed to fund foreign countries or to send American boys to fight other people's wars?

Taxpayer dollars, rather than benefiting Americans, are instead shipped overseas for the enrichment of foreigners. Conservatives claim to oppose wealth redistribution schemes characteristic of the welfare state here at home, yet they all too often support these schemes at the international level. They think it's normal for the U.S. to dictate to other countries what kind of government they should have. All of this is done in the name of freedom, supposedly. America calls out to the nations of the world, "you will become a democracy" while our Bill of Rights is shredded by the Office of Homeland Security.


Myth Five: "If you don't like the policy of this country, you're free to leave!"

Kosher conservatives tell us if we disagree with American foreign policy, then we should leave the country. "Love it or leave it" is the good old retort of the defender of the status quo. However, if anyone leaves America, would that free him of politically correct imperialism? What if someone unhappy with Clinton moved to Serbia, only to have bombs rain down on his head as Clinton demands that Serbia must allow in as many Albanian illegal aliens as America allows in illegal Mexicans.

Basically we have no choice, we can make a stand and fight political correctness here in America or we can flee to another country only to have open borders, gun control and "gay rights" forced on us under threat of war by presidents like Clinton and Bush.


Source:

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1838

Maybe I should tell you short story of my grandfather's. In the end of WW2 he was a small boy liiving in small village nearby the city you have never heard of. He remembers American soldiers giving him some chocolate. Of course I had another grandfather. In the same time he lived around 20 kilometres from that place. What about Soviet soldiers there? He told me they demanded watches from every one they met. Three years after we fell under the control of Communist Party (till 1989) and it will take another decades to recover. Without American help world woud be governed by Hitler or Stalin. If former could beat SSSR, Britain would be destroyed in the end, sooner or later. Or the latter would take control of the whole Europe (maybe you could visit London, certainly not Paris). Weren't these certain interests overseas? Haven't you beaten Nazis and Soviet Communist Party? Half of civilized world can be only thankful to you for its freedom. Isn't this enough? Sweden would suffer under Nazis or under SSSR - certainly not prosper. Switzerland could be spared from this though it would have to collaborate with victor much more than it did with Nazis during WW2. Don't think you have done all this for free. All British money saved in Southern America were paid to USA for weapons..and much more...process of deconstruction of colonialism has been accelerated by superior commercial and military power of America, you have just wanted to cut your own piece of world. Now-a-days the situation is more complex. European countries (except of UK) are weak. Germany and France aren't doing so well as they would wish to. NATO is a joy at your hand because no country has real military power but you and UK. europen countries are hardly trying to re-establish their own power, to free from this dependency. This must take some years to be completed. It is one reason why you shouldn't give up overseas. Once vulnerable European economics would lose - not without quite bad results for your own. And what about Israel and oil? I really do not know why you are interested so much in Israel. But I am sure of reasons leading your country to strong interventions in Iraq and other oil-producing lands. You need oil much more than the rest of the world. Why would your president give so much attention to program of hydrogen fuel-cells? And what are those cogitations of new nuclear power plants in USA? This great dependency of your country CANNOT BE DENIED. You need oil much more desperately than others do. Do not think Europe and Japan do not meddle in these affairs. Oil is blood of modern economics, therefore every country tries to gain as much control of it as it is possible. But I AGREE with some of your points. America is scared of terrorism beyond my " Europen imagination". I would not live in USA for anything in the world. However small and unimportant my country is, I feel strong satisfaction I do live on this side of Atlantic . Our stupid government cannot handle any consistent foreign policy, our economics is constantly going nowhere and so on. But I am not interested in foreign policy because it can change nothing. Furhermore I feel much more free here than I could in US because our police is absolutely incapable, our administrative is lousy thing and our grain is absolutely "easy-going". I can just turn on CNN and rejoice of my wonderful country. You are superpower, you just cannot do anything else. We are nothing, therefore we can live and have a fun. Good news for you is that Sweden and Swizerland are much more ugly and disgusting countries than USA is. 20 per cent of population in Switzerland consist of immigrants from all the world - they are just working there with only little hope for citizenship - just work or fuck off. What about Sweden? People are scared only to speed a little on the highway because of policemen. Money, as it seems, are not of so importance as it is said, if you want know real quality of life...

America can't return to isolationism because the US isnt self sufficient.

It never was more than mere example. In fact this village was (and is) Europe. Nothing of what I have said must be changed for your brief note. Obviously you are interested much more in your foreign policy than in anything other. I can agree with you on all your topics regarding your fears of terrorism and social background of the whole thing. But I can never agree with your opinion on your interests overseas as you call it. Every empire I have ever read about felt necessary to meddle in things of neighbouring countries. Now-a-days the whole world is in this neighbourhood. You need oil, metals and other sources, you need to sell your weapons, computers, ships and other stuff. Any other country tries hard to accomplish the same goal. Why would it be silly to use all the advantages you have in your hands? Or do you think you can forget Africa and concentrate on your own affairs? Can you let China beat that small island they would like to get last sixty years (I am too lazy to find its English name - I am sorry)? I do not think so. Why? Because very prosperity of your land depends on effort of your government - to make other countries to sell this and buy that, to let your industry and commerce fully use such opportunities. Where is produced the greatest part of your computer chips? Isn't it that island? Furhermore it is quite strange to hear such complaints from you while so many people suspect your country from sponging on countries of the third world. It would be very kind of you if your country let the rest of the world to us and others. It cannot happen. For example we have so exquisite passive radar which can detect even your stealth fighters. It is called VERA and we cannot sell it because you have forbidden it. All that money spent to develop stealth fighters would be lost if our small company could sell its products. Is not this pretty example why your leaders long to meddle in affairs of others? What if China, India, Iran, Lybia, what if all these countries had got this radar? You would not be able to deliver your laser bombs wherever you wish. Such a catastrophe! Pentagon urges for immediate measures! Therefore we cannot sell it. How can you do this? Because we want your power to defend us and therefore we are willing to pay such a tribute. What if OPEC decided to increase the costs of oil? How could your government prevent it? Certainly it would be impossilbe if your soliders sat home and your economics were almost closed. Small countries may profit from your " Pax americana" and they may do quite well, like Sweden and Switzerland, or Ireland. But such an immense country cannot just try to manufacture better things than others, you have so much concerns in the world you cannot not to intervene. Hadn't you possess such a power and prosper so much who would allow you to consume more than 80 cer cent of oil, so much of it in your too great and too plenty cars (while driving from one place to another not knowing of the advateges of public transport), who would allow you to pollute atmosphere by CO2 without care and deny your signature on Kjoto protocol? Who would allow your president to deny existence and serious character of greenhouse effect (fortunately Kerry makes better)? Your way of life would have to be quite different... I cannot see any difference between Americans claiming their right to go anywhere and take whatever and Americans trying to convince others that they need not intervene, that world can manage itself. Once you want anything you have to pay.

What religious freedoms or laws do you live with and by, and what role does government play in religion and vice versa?

This is a small thought in terms of international complexities but, I can't help but feel that the US isn't qualified to "make the world a better place" with things being as messy as they are here. And I cannot condone the government lying to its people to sway them on any war or conflict, even if it is in our best interest. One of the reasons we fear outside threat to the point that we do, is the paranoia mentioned on other thread, and the added paranoia of us not beeing able to trust our own government not to lie to us and even properly take care of us.

What is the crime like in your area Zefram?