Home » Posts tagged 'foreign intervention'
Tag Archives: foreign intervention
Is It Time for a New Direction?
Is It Time for a New Direction?
If Americans are not doing some serious soul-searching in the midst of this crisis, they need to start. Where America goes from here is not some sort of esoteric debate. What we do at this point has life or death consequences. Get it wrong, and suffer more death, suffering, and impoverishment. Get it right, and America moves toward life, health, liberty, peace, prosperity, and harmony.
What everyone needs to recognize is that they are facing a choice of systems, not a choice of people. Either stick with the same systems or switch over to new systems. That’s the choice now facing the American people.
Let’s examine four systems under which we currently live and have lived for decades.
America’s economic system
This is a centrally planned and centrally managed system run by the federal government. Its central aim is to “wage war on poverty” by forcibly taking money from everyone and redistributing it to people in need, such as the elderly and the poor. It is based on massive confiscation of income and wealth by the Internal Revenue Service, in the form of income taxes and payroll taxes.
America’s healthcare system
This too is a centrally planned and centrally managed system run by the federal government. It is based on big, powerful central planning agencies like as the Centers for Disease Control and the FDA, as well as massive socialist programs like Medicare and Medicaid, both of which are responsible for foisting a never-ending healthcare crisis onto the American people consisting of ever-increasing healthcare costs that have bankrupted people or sent them into deep debt.
America’s monetary system
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Why Decentralized Militias Matter
Why Decentralized Militias Matter
In 1852, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech in Springfield, Illinois in which he talked about the attempts at required militia training. He described how much of a joke the citizens made of any attempt at mandatory militia training. “No man,” Lincoln said, citing the rules, “is to wear more than five pounds of cod-fish for epaulets, or more than thirty yards of bologna sausages for a sash; and no two men are to dress alike, and if any two should dress alike the one that dresses most alike is to be fined.” He also described the militia figure of “our friend Gordon Abrams” at a militia training, “on horse-back . . . with a pine wood sword, about nine feet long, and a paste-board cocked hat, from front to rear about the length of an ox yoke, and very much the shape of one turned bottom upwards.”1
Lincoln was attempting to ridicule the dismissive attitudes of his fellow Illinoisans toward compulsory militia training. The conventional wisdom in military theory is that, for effective defense, the military must be centralized and continually maintained in the form of a compulsory standing army. Even from supposed “small government” advocates, this notion is never contested. However, the evidence from the time suggests that had it not been for the decentralized and voluntary militia system, Lincoln himself may have had significantly more trouble at the beginning of the Civil War.
During the Jacksonian era, the militia system in the states shifted largely from a compulsory to a voluntary system. Because of this, the Mexican War was first war fought by the United States that did not require a draft (the Civil War drafts are often cited as the first cases of conscription in the United States, but this ignores conscription administered by the states that took place during the Revolutionary War and War of 1812). During the Mexican War, roughly 50,000 troops were raised, all of whom enlisted without any compulsory measures.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Study: Foreign Countries Intervene in Civil Wars 100 Times More Often when Afflicted Countries Have Oil
Study: Foreign Countries Intervene in Civil Wars 100 Times More Often when Afflicted Countries Have Oil
The Independent reports that a new study conducted in the Universities of Portsmouth, Warwick and Essex, and published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, finds that “hydrocarbons play an even bigger role in conflicts” than “conspiracy theorists” ever imagined.
…foreign intervention in a civil war is 100 times more likely when the afflicted country has high oil reserves than if it has none.
…a third party is 100 times more likely to intervene when the country at war is a big producer and exporter of oil…
…suggesting hydrocarbons were a major reason for the [US/UK] military intervention in Libya … and the current US campaign against Isis in northern Iraq.
“After a rigorous and systematic analysis, we found that the role of economic incentives emerges as a key factor in intervention,” said co-author Dr Vincenzo Bove, of the University of Warwick. “Before the Isis forces approached the oil-rich Kurdish north of Iraq, Isis was barely mentioned in the news. But once Isis got near oil fields, the siege of Kobani in Syria became a headline and the US sent drones to strike Isis targets,” he added.
[The study] found that the decision to intervene was dominated by the third-party’s need for oil, far more than historical, geographic or ethnic ties.
The US maintains troops in Persian Gulf oil producers and has a history of supporting conservative autocratic states…
David Cameron was instrumental in setting up the coalition that intervened in Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya in 2011, a country with sizeable oil reserves.
It is also important to remember that often control over resources, rather than mere access, is more important to a regime seeking an illegal stranglehold over international affairs:
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
