Feminists only defend another woman if they are on their side. Otherwise they consider women that don't share their "values" as just so much fodder and meat for the gristmill. That is what makes them so irrelevant.
Feminists and feminism is a dead movement. As dead as the democrat party.
I stand by every word. This reality has been proven over and over again.
Did you get a chance to read this? If so, are you proud? Kerry certainly understands what is going on, and so does President George W. Bush.
The Price of the "Entangling Alliance"
How the Bosnia Mission Destroyed NATO in order to Save It
by Robert Tracinski
In my commentary on one of yesterday's news links, I mentioned the irony of NATO's refusal to help America in Afghanistan and Iraq. "Remember back in 1995," (during Bill Clinton's presidency) I wrote, "when the US deployed troops to Bosnia, that one of the main reasons we were given was that we had to support the NATO alliance, in case we ever needed NATO's help in the future. Now that we need that help, where is NATO?"
Today, I reviewed some of the things I wrote back then--early in my career as a commentator--about the NATO mission. In the February 1996 issue of The American
Republic (a newsletter I closed down later that year to become editor of The Intellectual Activist), I wrote an article titled "Entangling Alliance." It begins:
"On December 15, 1995, command of the 'peacekeeping' mission in Bosnia was transferred from the United Nations to the NATO alliance. This transfer of command reflected one of the crucial justifications for sending US troops to
Bosnia: the need to maintain US leadership in NATO, and thus to preserve the existence of the NATO alliance. As Senator Bob Kerrey argued in the congressional debates on the Bosnia mission: 'the continued viability of NATO'
is 'at issue today in the Balkans.' "
I pointed out, at the time, that this was false:
"Yet the Bosnia mission has no relation to NATO's original purpose--defense against Soviet aggression. Nor is our participation required by the NATO charter, which obliges the US to come to the defense of its NATO allies if they
are attacked. The conflict in Bosnia has not involved an attack, or even the threat of an attack, against a NATO member."
But the advocates of the Bosnia mission had this argument to offer, as expressed in November 28 testimony by former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger before the Senate Armed Services Committee. When asked whether there was any specific provision in the NATO charter that required us to go to Bosnia, Schlesinger replied: "No, there is nothing. The only question is our relationship with our allies, which, through the North Atlantic Treaty, rises above the specific wording of that agreement."
It is ironic, therefore, that we committed troops to Bosnia for the indefinite future (and they are still there, aren't they?)in order to show our dedication to the needs and interests of our NATO allies and the "world community," with the implicit promise that we could call on their help when we needed it--only to have our recent requests for even the simplest forms of official NATO cooperation rudely rebuffed by France and Germany.
But this is not really ironic after all. The seeds of the current French and German obstinacy--a conflict that is destroying NATO as a functioning alliance--were all laid in the arguments for the Bosnia mission nine years ago.
The real purpose of the Bosnia mission was not, in fact, to reinforce a relationship of mutual friendship and aid, in which we would help the Europeans and they would agree to help us. The purpose of the Bosnia mission was to harness the power of America, the world's sole remaining "superpower," as the voiceless servant of the interests and demands of Europe--a servant with no
right to demand reciprocity.
As I pointed out then: "In a December 7 [1995] editorial, the New York Times heralded US intervention in Bosnia as the 'Stirrings of a New NATO.' ...[T]he Bosnia mission has 'brought encouraging signs that can give it a future
providing for the new security needs of an undivided Europe.' "
Get that? The future of the "New NATO" was that American would provide for Europe's needs.
At the time, I observed:
"Many of the same individuals who condemned American military action against the Soviet threat are now calling for increased US military intervention around the
world, from Somalia to Bosnia. It has become clear that it was not American military power that the left objected to, but rather the exercise of that power in America's interests."
It is even clearer today.
This gives the lie to the claims of all the John Kerry-style "multilateralists," that if we were only more deferential to the diplomatic sensibilities of our
European allies, they would be more eager and willing to help us when we ask for it. The contrast between Bosnia and Iraq proves, once again, that (as I have put it more recently) multilateralism is a one-way street: it is a ruse to require our deference to the needs and demands of other countries, while allowing us no right to the pursuit and protection of our own interests.
In that 1996 article, I advocated the immediate suspension of America's membership in NATO, but I said that America should be willing "to cooperate with the Europeans in any matter in which we share a common interest." When I was
writing that article, I remember that I contemplated a specific recommendation that we form a new international alliance to combat the growing threat of Islamic terrorism. I regret to say that I did not do so, therefore depriving
myself of the ability to gloat about my unusual prescience. But I do think that is what we need to do today.
We need to declare NATO officially dead and seek to replace it with a more official and permanent "coalition of the willing"--a coalition whose primary membership criterion should be a willingness to confront the states who sponsor terrorism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now! You and your lefty buddies might agree with John Kerry and your party that the American military will be used as slaves at the beck and call of European elitists, (just listen to him when he speaks about our military and our sovereignty) but there are MILLIONS of Americans who do not.
This is the main reason your party will lose in November.
America WILL defend itself for its own reasons against any threat and WILL NOT be the puppet of other countries. Kerry would, of course, disagree.
M |
