Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

Sir; the sad fact is one Lenin gave voice to long ago: that empires cost money. They also eat capital, and when the capital is gone some one will want us to export what the capital went to produce. Capitalism is about producing in the first world and exporting to the third. Now we have reversed the process. Now we export capital, and import product. How long will it take, exporting capital, exporting jobs, and exporting wealth to buy imports- How long will it take to drain all the extra wealth out of our society. We are buying our life style with credit, and this is as true for the people as for the government. You know your capitalism isn't working when instead of income, one must live on credit. And what is the payoff for us being the world's policeman? I see in the news where we call one of the weakest countries our strongest allie. Really; how are they going to help? We expect people to sell us their oil, but do not give them a source of power to get them through when the oil runs out. Why? If they don't need the oil, we can use it well. Let me tell you why people build empires. It is for the very reason that they do not pay, and it is that they all serve as a conduit for national wealth into private hands. What is happening in Iraq. Is it costing us money? Certainly. How much? What ever it is, I'll bet you a handful of nickles that 90% never leaves this shore. Some one is paying and some one is collecting, but very few in Iraq are getting rich. You think about it sir. No people has ever had empire but at the expense of their own freedom. Napoleon conquered his France, and Henry the Eighth, and Elizabeth conquered England. The price of empire is not paid in gold alone, but is paid in lost liberty.

Reply
Report this post

Mr. Buchanan: Your column got off to a slow start, but finished strong. The points you raise are good ones. We need to be talking things over with our allies, putting withdrawal of our troops and closing of our bases at the top of the agenda. We must look out for our interests first, and I don't mind paying the cost of doing so. However, if our bases in Europe, for instance, are doing more to ensure the safety of Europe, than of the US, then two questions arise: a) why don't the Europeans take over the bases and man them with their own troops, or b) at least share the cost of the protection with us, both in treasure and personnel. <> Mr. Sweeney: "We expect people to sell us their oil, but do not give them a source of power to get them through when the oil runs out. Why?" Your oblique statement appears to refer to the nation of Iran, in which case its assertion is false, its question irrelevant. 1. President Ahmadinejad is a devout Muslim, who has declared himself an enemy of the US, as well as of Israel, and who has hinted that he has, or soon will have, the ability to wipe Israel off the map; 2. He has claimed that his enrichment of uranium is in pursuit of nuclear power for peaceful purposes, yet his religious faith sanctions lying to enemies; 3. Paying attention, then, to what he is doing, and what he says he wants to do, while treating his deflecting comments as outright lies, the reasonable conclusion is that he is seeking to build an atomic weapon, which he will either a) use to intimidate the area (world) to get an advantage, or b) use (launch) without warning against Israel, to achieve the publicly stated goal we can believe, because it is the one that is consistent with his avowed devotion to Islam. <> Don't mine for information in the same place all the time.