2004 November 02 Tuesday
Whoever Loses The Presidential Election Missed An Opportunity

Bryanna Bevens makes the argument that women care greatly about security and would have been attracted by proposals for better border security.

The strategic blunder: Homeland Security.

Not the "Homeland Security" policy that launches a 500 billion dollar war in Iraq that in no way secures our homeland or locates any terrorists.

Women want a more tangible Homeland Security—that reassures us our children will be safe, and in one piece, when we pick them up from school.

In short, the Homeland Security that has yet to happen.

Eric Lustbader, quoted in my epigraph above, is right: Women want stability.

Shutting America’s borders until we can reform our immigration policy to include effective security measures is the simplest, non-violent approach to terrorism.

Well, to date Bush has been unwilling to pay a high price in terms of abandoning his Hispandering to pursue proper border security. Kerry shows little sign of a willingness to do much better. Neither candidate has come up with an aggressive set of proposals to defend Americans on the edges and entry points of America. Bush has been willing to spend hundreds of billions in Iraq (though clearly he underestimated what he was getting us into there) which was not a major source of terrorists motivated to attack the United States. But Bush did not try to spend even a tenth that amount on border control and tracking of foreigners here.

What amazes me about this state of affairs is that even though two New York City skyscrapers were knocked down by terrorists the liberal elite is truly so clueless that it hasn't come around to supporting really effective close-in defense as an alternative to Bush's reckless foreign policy.

This election is a sign to me that the United States needs a new political party. The two main parties seem like they are hopeless. Maybe some future debacle in the Middle East or on the domestic front will shake one of the parties out of their intellectual rut. But so far 9/11 was clearly not enough to break many loose from their ideological moorings.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2004 November 02 01:52 AM  Politics American Domestic

Invisible Intellect said at November 2, 2004 6:28 AM:

The greatest danger of foreign infiltration into the US, is not just in the form of physical
colonization of America by illegal aliens, but also the fact that the annual foreign trade deficit is
close to 5 % of the GDP, year after year. This means that already, more than $2 trillion
dollars in cash, have accumulated in the central banks of Far Eastern countries (about 30 % of the M2),
as well as 40 % of treasury bonds and treasury bills separately.
With this money, foreign countries are able to influence US policy, because the US became dependant on
the foreign ability to send us cheap goods in exchange for the printed US currency,
and more importantly, their willingness to accept US dollars in exchange for raw materials,
especially oil. In order to keep this scheme going, that is, to encourage foreigners to buy US treasury
bills and treasury bonds, and to make them invest their net surplus in the US, the government legislated
to allow those foreigners who have US dollars, to buy land, corporations, real estate, and even US citizenship.
Gradually, foreign powers are gaining ground here, to influence US policy, without even becoming immigrants.

The bottom line is this: as a direct consequence
of our dependence on the foreign trade deficit and
the willingness of the foreigners to send us
cheap raw materials and their cheap labor, the
US military machine is forced to protect countries
like Singapore, Taiwan, as well as
unpopular Middle Eastern regimes like Saudi Arabian Royal Family, and many others. In this
respect, we are already colonized, and we are
fighting the wars of others as hired soldiers.
Although the Europeans are saying that the US is the
aggressor in the Middle East, they
are very pleased that the US is
getting ready to take action to stop the nuclear
plans of Iran, becuase Europe will soon be in the
range of Islamic nuclear missiles, and Europe
is already being colonized by Islamic immigrants. Basically, Europeans are using the
US military machine to protect them, and we are
forced to do so, due to our being economically
enslaved (i.e. colonized) by foreigners.

All our high-technology companies are outsourcing
in countries that are not even politically on
our side, and in addition to losing high paying
jobs, we are even losing our scientific and
military technological edge because of this.

Let me list some concrete numbers for the total amount of US dollars in foreign central banks: $471 billion,
Japan: $800 billion, Taiwan: $230, India: $114 billion,East Asia: $500 billion. Hence the total from
above is $2,015 billion, while the U.S. M2 Money Supply is $6,350 billion. This means that Asian holdings
of the US dollars alone, is close to 30 % of the M2. And foreigners own over 40 % of all the Treasury bills
and Treasury bonds. At some point, if this asymmetry starts constraining the US government's ability to
continue deficit spending, the entire scheme can collapse, but this is a
political consideration, we are unable to predict what foreign governments
will decide to do with their hoard of cash.

Invisible Intellect said at November 2, 2004 6:32 AM:

Correction: In the last paragraph above, the $471 billion that accumulated, belongs to China.

lugh lampfhota said at November 2, 2004 7:43 AM:

Both buyer and seller have a vested interest in the continuation of free trade. The buyer benefits from more purchasing power from cheaper goods while the seller benefits from higher income which also increases their purchasing power. So long as trade is fair, both sides benefit.

The idea that foreigners "colonize" a debtor nation and thereby control it's foreign policy is absurd. Foreigners invest in America because of the stability of our economy. Our stability increases the security of their investment and hence their stability. Should a foreign power attempt to destabilize America, they in turn reduce their own security as investments turn into vapor.

America is the only nation capable of projecting global military power to protect shipping and democracy from tyrants. Our protection of sea lanes near Singapore, Hormuz, Taiwan benefits trade for both America and the nearby nations. It is a proper function of the leading economic power of the world rather than some crass payoff for debt.

Individual Americans have a responsibility to control balance of trade issues. Do you really need to buy that latest thing you see on the store shelves? Would it be better to save some of your pay rather than add to your personal indebtedness? Is there an American made product you can buy rather than the foreign product?

The government has only a small role to play in trade issues. Individual Americans must also do their part. Otherwise we get a planned economy and we've seen just how ineffective they are ala the Soviet Union.

Marine Infantryman (In Repose) said at November 2, 2004 11:22 AM:

So, you think the best offense is a good defense, huh? You'd rather spend your tax dollars posting Border Patrol agents every ten feet along our Northern and Southern borders. And you're comfortable that there is a technologically feasible way to sniff out every one of the 20,000 containers that come into US ports every day? Technologically feasible AND affordable...? And to check every 18 wheeler? Guard every tunnel... defend every bridge... bury our water supplies... harden our power plants... x-ray every package... But gotta dump that Patriot Act! Hypothetical/anecdotal evidence tells me Ashcroft wants to know my library choices... Preemption is not friendly! War is bad! And why didn't Bush stop 9-11 on 9-10, anyway?

Well, you just don't get it, do ya? You don't see the contradictions. The terrorists are in the cockpit of your AeroMex 737. No one yet knows your routine international flt has been commandeered. You're in the skies of Northern Mexico. San Diego's low-rise office buildings are a short 5-min power dive away. What do you do? Do you sit in your Coach class seat and fret about international opinion and the rights of the bad guys? Do you scream out in frustration that all your tax dollars spent on defense failed to prevent this outrage? Do you pray for preemption? Or, do you rush the cockpit?

Randall Parker said at November 2, 2004 1:37 PM:


I believe in going on the offensive when that is actually going to be productive toward the goal of protecting American lives. I also favor use of the defensive to protect lives as well. So, for example, I favor the use of locks on car doors, house doors, and other places to protect good people from bad people. Do you oppose defensive measures in principle?

The 9/11 terrorists did not come from Iraq. Bush wanted to invade Iraq as far back as 1999 apparently because he thought a small war would boost his popularity. We are spending money and lives in Iraq with the result of a decrease in American security while we are not spending money in other ways that would increase American security.

If we aren't going to conduct a competent defense then how can we conduct a competent offense? Do you support invasion of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Those countries have lots of Al Qaeda terrorists in them. Bush is obviously opposed to invading either of those countries.

You seem to be missing the point that I'm a right-wing hawk attacking Bush from the right because he's an incompetent strategist. I have no problem with killing our real enemies.

As for the Patriot Act: I've been pretty critical of attempts to stop information technology to be used against terrorists and the absurd restrictions placed on spies and law enforcement for tracking terrorists.

Invisible Intellect said at November 2, 2004 2:18 PM:


You are saying that Bush wanted to invade Iraq as far back as 1999 apparently because a small
war would boost his popularity. This may be true, but isn't it also true that
an even more important reason (more recently) happens to be the fact that Bush
wanted to prevent the radical Islam from gaining control of
the oil reserves in the Middle East. You are saying that Bush is currently opposed to invading
Saudi Arabia, but this can change if Saudi Arabia is conquered by Al Qaeda.

In any case, the defense of the USA would be much more simple, if the country were more
independent of foreign imports, especially for raq materials. It was much easier to prosecute the WW II
when the US was self-sufficient in all areas. Now the US depende in worldwide imports of all goods and
services. Any disruption of these imports can devastate the defense and offense strategy of the US.
That's what I was complaining about in my message above... I have nothing against free markets.

John S Bolton said at November 3, 2004 12:26 AM:

One of the biggest problems for national defense is that the governments' culture has spent decades propagandizing for the idea that there are, in principle, no undesirable aliens. This requires all sorts of fictions to sustain it. One of the stories is that adults can learn foreign languages in sufficient degree, that immigrants who do not speak the language of the country are not to be classed as undesirable aliens for that reason alone. Another related fiction is the line that foreigners outside the country, have rights here, and such that we could do them injustice by treating them as undesirable aliens. There are large numbers of hostile individuals and populations out there, though, and public policy cannot long proceed as if everyone had friendly intentions, but not parasitical or other hostile tendencies.

noone said at November 3, 2004 5:17 AM:

"So, you think the best offense is a good defense, huh?"

Which is why Winston Churchill sent the entire RAF to deal with Argentina in 1940,because defending Britain from the Luftwaffe was a waste of time and the Argies where the real threat,huh?

Even the worst teams try to have an offence AND a defence,why do we only get one or the other?

If islamist terrorists are in Mexico right now(and there are reports of many contacts between them and people smugglers there and in central america),how will having your butt in Iraq keep them out of San Diego??The people we're shooting there are just dumb cannon fodder,the dangerous (smart) ones aren't even close to the place,they're already in San Diego,thanks to our surreal policies.

And all of this will be academic when the islamists finally get the balls to really target oil faculties in SA,Kuwait and elsewhere,that is,when when they finally use their capabilities to wage economic warfare against us.Oil is the achilles tendon of the world,cut that and the whole global economy is screwed(and our levels of public,private and corporate debt will ruin the US economy for a generation and "government policy" to deal with the "crisis" will cripple us for another 2).

The future isn't bright unless you think bomb explosions are real pretty.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©