I've been too busy to post lately, and still haven't finished my series on socialism, communism, and fascism, but since the the debate tonight is on foreign policy, and it is going to interrupt my watching of Hawaii 5.0 tonight, I'd like to pose some questions that I would like to see asked of the candidates. Questions that, if answered, would show how this "debate" is much more of a joint press conference. So here they are:
We often hear that our goals in interventionist wars is to spread democracy. We often hear politicians and pundits alike rail against what they consider to be rigged elections in other countries. How then, do you reconcile the fact that the Democratic and Republican parties joined together to take control of the presidential debates from the League of Women Voters for the express purpose of excluding third party voices from being heard?
What effect do you think the blatant hypocrisy pointed out above has on how other countries view us? What effect has it had on our once proud standing as the model of democracy? Why do we now extol the virtues of democracy, not by example, but by force? When has, 'do as I say, not as I do', ever been a successful model for affecting change?
I certainly can't hold either of you responsible for the actions of past presidents. But I would ask if either of you have read a history book since graduating high school. Let's take a look at our past foreign policy, and see how it relates to the policy of today.
In 1955, the CIA and British intelligence overthrew a democratically elected ruler of Iran because he wanted to nationalize their oil industry and we put our own puppet in charge of the country. In 1967, we sold that puppet a 5-megawatt nuclear reactor.
In 1979, our puppet was overthrown by an Iranian revolution and Ayatollah Khomeini took control of the country. Since that time, the claim has been made that Iran was "3-5 years away from building a nuclear warhead", with a large help from the reactor we sold them.
During the 80s, because we didn't like Ayatollah Khomeini, we supplied Saddam Hussein with weapons and training in support of Iraq's war with Iran. He went on to use those weapons and training for genocide, forcing us into Desert Storm.
Also during the 80s, by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's own admission, we funded the groups that would become Al Qaeda in their fight against the Soviet Union. The war with Afghanistan was, in part, responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. We are now fighting those same people in a conflict very similar to the one that economically crippled the Soviets. It has lasted longer than WWI and WWII combined.
In 2003, the American public was convinced that we needed to go to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein, whom we once funded, had weapons of mass destruction. No weapons of mass destruction were found. Now, we are set to repeat the same mistake with Iran, who has been "3-5 years away from building a nuclear warhead" for over a quarter of century, aided by a reactor we sold them.
Since 1953, the CIA has warned us of what they coined 'blowback', unintended consequences of foreign interventions. Despite many examples, some of which are listed above, we have a history of denying blowback as a cause of any of our struggles with foreign countries. Do you acknowledge that blowback exists, and if so, how would you avoid it going forward?
Since 1953, the CIA has warned us of what they coined 'blowback', unintended consequences of foreign interventions. Despite many examples, some of which are listed above, we have a history of denying blowback as a cause of any of our struggles with foreign countries. Do you acknowledge that blowback exists, and if so, how would you avoid it going forward?
How do you reconcile the fact that our interventionism has backfired on us every single time, with the current interventions across the Middle East?
What role do you think our past interference with Iran having the leadership that its people want has on our current relationship with them?
How do you reconcile the fact that we are fighting Al Qaeda (after indirectly helping to create them) in Afghanistan, but funding them, regardless of how indirectly, in Syria?
And this one is for Romney only. Both you, and at least two of your staff, have made present tense references to the Soviet Union. If you are so incredibly stupid as to not know that the Soviet Union has been gone for decades, how are you qualified to take control of our foreign policy?
