The American Spectator : The Cold War Is History

The Cold War Is History

By Doug Bandow on 2.10.10 @ 6:07AM

NATO contributions to Afghanistan will end up being less than they appear. European military outlays will continue falling. Why is the U.S. defending this populous and prosperous continent?

Afghanistan has become increasingly important to NATO. Special envoy Richard Holbrooke says Afghanistan is "the ultimate test" for the alliance.

Secretary Hillary Clinton would have us believe NATO has passed the test. She announced in December that she had won NATO commitments for another 7,000 troops for Afghanistan. She said, "I am just extremely heartened by the level of positive response we've received," and explained: "This is a significant commitment by our" alliance partners.

Yet 1,500 of the supposed extra personnel are already on station and simply won't be withdrawn while 900 (from non-NATO member Georgia) were promised before the Obama administration decided to increase troop levels. Many of the new troops detachments are small (80 from Macedonia, 85 from Albania) and are from nations that refuse to let their soldiers fight; thousands of the new personnel will be deployed to train Afghan forces rather than battle Taliban insurgents.

After the international conference held in London in late January, Paris announced that it would add no more combat troops. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner explained: "We don't want to send more troops to fight."

Germany offered only 850 -- 500 directly and another 350 as part of a "flexible reserve" for periodic deployment -- about a third of what Washington hoped for. Romania promised 600.

Unfortunately, Canada and the Netherlands plan to withdraw their roughly 5,000 troops over the next two years, effectively wiping out most of the European "surge." The British government is likely to rethink its participation in the Afghan mission after the coming election. The Royal United Services Institute has proposed "a radical scaling back" of Britain's contribution.

Observes Daniel Korski of the European Council on Foreign Relations, "Every nation fibs a little, and when you aggregate all the small fibs, it's hard not to come up with a big fib."

As a result, NATO is rife with recriminations. Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini charged that "some European countries," such as France, were shirking their responsibilities. A British official complained: "Frankly, France's current deployment is too small for a country with that big an army." Toby Archer of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, noted: "Particular ire was aimed at Germany and France and the word 'cowardice' crept into the public debate."

In any case, while the Aussies, British, Canadians, Danes, and Dutch are noteworthy for their combat efforts, most of the allied contributions are limited in geography and restricted by national "caveats," making them of only modest security value to the mission. Yet nation-building in Afghanistan is diverting European resources from the defense of Europe.

During the Cold War the Europeans routinely enjoyed a cheap if not quite free defense ride. And since 2,000 the European share of NATO military spending has decreased even as the European share of NATO GDP has increased.

The U.S. devotes almost four percent of GDP to (baseline) defense spending. Only four other NATO members, including Greece, which is arming more against fellow NATO member Turkey than any non-NATO adversary, break the two percent level. Most members are below 1.5 percent.

The trade-off between Afghanistan and European defense is evident even in America's closest ally, Great Britain. Defense Secretary Bob Ainsworth announced new measures to support operations in Afghanistan, explaining that "We cannot exclude major shifts in the way that we use our defense spending to refocus our priorities." The Economist observed that most of the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq "will be found by raiding other parts of the overstretched defense budget."

There is no unity of purpose in Europe. Charged Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum: "There is almost no sense anywhere that the war in Afghanistan is an international operation, or that the stakes and goals are international, or that the soldiers on the ground represent anything other than their own national flags and national armed forces: Most of the war's European critics want to know why their boys are fighting 'for the Americans,' not for NATO."

The problem runs much deeper, however. Mature "Old Europe" long has preferred to devote its resources to sustaining an expensive welfare state. Even Central and Eastern Europeans, which most fear possible Russian coercion, spend more time clamoring for greater support from the U.S. and Western Europe than in augmenting their own forces. In a recent study for the Strategic Studies Institute Col. Joel Hillison reported: "While Russian military expenditures began to rise after 2001, the average defensive burden of these new members continued their gradual fall."

Page: 1 2 3 >

Letter to the Editor

topics:
NATO, Afghanistan War, Europe

Melvin| 2.10.10 @ 7:32AM

The typical European attitude is, "Why in the hell should we pay to maintain a standing military when the stupid American tax payer will."
Does anyone remember the poll number of 68% of polled Europeans want to see America weakened.
It taken long for Europe to discover we can disband our military except for few boy scouts, rusty tanks and take all those gazillions of now Euros and build a socialists paradise, with all the very best public transportations system, public welfare system, and don't forget freeeeee medical care.
Is it any wonder that every time we turn around that Europeans are always on some type of extended holiday all the while letting senior citizens roast to death in a heat wave that engulfed Europe a number of years ago.
A Englishman once told me, "You see, the problem with you Yanks is. you live to work and Europeans work to live."

Alan Brooks| 2.10.10 @ 8:22AM

Germany won WWII in that they are slightly better off than we are. Japan, too.

If that's losing a war, then we should all lose wars.

Al Adab| 2.10.10 @ 2:26PM

History has proven there is no more profitable action for a nation than losing a war to the United States.

"The Mouse That Roared"

coal carrier| 2.10.10 @ 7:53AM

Great article Mr. Bandow. Ah, hey Tom and Victor. Do you get the point?

Copyleft| 2.10.10 @ 8:16AM

Can't wait for all the staunch right-wingers who were loudly decrying any call to cut back on defense spending to show their faces here.

C'mon, explain again why the U.S. needs to Defend the World, with American taxpayers picking up the check. I'm sure it's all absolutely vital to national security, right?

Alan Brooks| 2.10.10 @ 8:27AM

Can't wait for all the staunch right-wingers who were loudly decrying any call to cut back on defense spending to show their faces here"C'mon, explain again why the U.S. needs to Defend the World, with American taxpayers picking up the check. I'm sure it's all absolutely vital to national security, right? "

Sure, let the Germans pick up the tab. They did as much as anyone to cause WWs I & II, the Cold War, the advent of nukes, the Arms Race. Israel wouldn't exist without Fritz.
So let Fritz pony up, Copyleft.

Reinhard| 2.10.10 @ 4:43PM

the Germans caused WWI? You need to read more history...that is, if you can read on the adult level. Idiot.

Alan Brooks| 2.11.10 @ 12:38AM

Alright then, if the Germans didn't cause WWI, then we can blame imperialism for WWII as well.
You can even write that Stalin didn't cause the Cold War-- YOU can write it, NOT me.
I MO:
a) Germany was the principal instigator of WWs I and II.
b) Stalin was the principal instigator of the Cold War.

Alan Brooks| 2.11.10 @ 12:39AM

bogi666| 2.12.10 @ 6:30AM

Stalin didn't create the Cold War and right after his death Beria, his chief of security KGB, contacted the USG with overtures to end it. He was rebuffed by the USG executed by the Soviet government for treason, not because of his overtures but for his reign of terror for Stalin. I suppose you actually think that the purpose of the Pentagon is to protect our liberties, the official policy. The true, unofficial policy, of the Pentagon is to protect American business interest around the world. These businesses interest do not want to pay taxes for this world wide protection, they want the American working class to pay the taxes for their, business, protection. This has to be done under the guise of "national security".

Eric Siverson| 2.12.10 @ 4:44PM

I think you are right , buisness might not be so good with out the US airforce . This was the jest of the book [ SHock Doctrine } . Or {one world ready or not } . We are not so much different than Hitler after all .

MikeD| 2.10.10 @ 8:48AM

Amazing! 'Copyleft' has actually written a coherent sentence that I can agree with! Having worked in 73 countries over my long, and occasionally successful, career, I enjoyed the friendship of a multitude of really good people the world over. The Europeans constantly wondered how long it would take before we woke up and realized we were giving them a free ride. They actually thought it was funny! They think Americans work way too hard to continue to pay for defending the lazy Europeans who all get a minimum of 5 weeks vacation plus innumerable holidays. Disband NATO and move our bases off to the east, near Poland and the other former East Bloc countries. Those people know all too well how Communism/Socialism works, and they want no part of it.

George Drwiega| 2.12.10 @ 12:56PM

2009-2-12
Regarding "moving the bases to Poland" (or nearby) - I understand, that this is to happen without the consent of the people there, right? Just as this is being done _always_ by the US.
The "talks" are with the governments, and the governments are fake, corrupted, infiltrated. The truth is, we THE PEOPLE - in Poland - do not wish to have any bases, Russian or otherwise. The Polish "military" is kept at low level of readiness by purpose. They are being "coached" - previously by Rusiians, now by the US. "Coached" in what? In subservience. Previously, and NOW it is the ultimate interests of any empire to play these cards for themselves - but never in the interests of the locals. They are God's playing filed. Or, the Empires playing fields.
Strong militaries _there_ means strong stated _there_. And this is not desirable for the likes of Curzon or other pencil-wielding map rewriters.
The new frontier is Syberia, perhaps.
With Poland as a staging area, with the corrupt puppet "government" consent.

TakiDrugi

Eric Siverson| 2.12.10 @ 5:02PM

You sure got that figured right ! we even could move our bases to Russia . There are no communists in the old Soviet Union . There were no communists in Yugoslavia either , but we attacked and dismembered them . Germany has attacked Yugoslavia three times in the last 100 yrs . They would not have dared to this , this last time without the United States and NATO . To much socialism could turn to communism or nazism . But I generally believe socialism is just the candy fed to get the people to give up their right to make decisions for themselves .

Anthony L Cerullo| 2.10.10 @ 11:18AM

Hey, I'm one of those " staunch right-wingers " who feels NATO and our so called European America Allies need a attitudinal adjustment by pulling out of NATO .

eric siverson| 2.12.10 @ 5:13PM

I could not agree more . In the WAR against Yugoslavia NATO did the exsact same things as the nazi's did sixty yrs earlier . I never cared for the nazis much and now I dont like NATO either .

P. Aaron| 2.10.10 @ 8:18AM

In the book Witness by Whittaker Chambers, the author joined the communist party because they (at the time) presented him with "something to live for and something to die for". Perhaps if Europeans had to defend their own turf, they too would have something to live for. Having to provide for their own defense may also halt Europe's declining birth rates. Unless Europeans don't want to defend Europe anymore.

The US should pull out and let all those 'progressives' take measure of their soveriegnty and culture and determine for themselves if it is worth it to defend.

Alan Brooks| 2.10.10 @ 8:37AM

Copyleft, we agree. 'Tis better for the Germans to give than to receive. A gift that keeps on giving.
O Tannenbaum, o Tannenbaum,
wie treu sind deine Blätter!
Du grünst nicht nur
zur Sommerzeit,
Nein auch im Winter, wenn es schneit.
O Tannenbaum, o Tannenbaum,
wie treu sind deine Blätter!

O Tannenbaum, o Tannenbaum!
Du kannst mir sehr gefallen!
Wie oft hat nicht zur Weihnachtszeit
Ein Baum von dir mich hoch erfreut!
O Tannenbaum, o Tannenbaum!
Du kannst mir sehr gefallen!

O Tannenbaum, o Tannenbaum!
Dein Kleid will mich
was lehren:
Die Hoffnung und Beständigkeit
Gibt Trost und Kraft
zu jeder Zeit.
O Tannenbaum, o Tannenbaum!
Das soll dein Kleid
mich lehren.

Al Adab| 2.10.10 @ 10:14AM

Sehr gut Herr Brooks. Danke.

Alan Brooks| 2.10.10 @ 10:57AM

Jawohl

PCC| 2.10.10 @ 8:39AM

Dear Mr. Bandow,

I agree completely and hope this view will animate US foreign miltary policy vis a vis Europe and NATO in the foreseeable future. Incidentally, it applies to South Korea and Japan as well.

Red Phillips| 2.10.10 @ 8:50AM

What a novel idea. That other countries should defend themselves instead of relying on the Good Ol' US of A to do it for them. This applies equally to Europe, South Korea, Japan, Kuwait, Israel, etc. Then perhaps our troops could come home and defend our own border.

But of course the interventionists America uber alles crowd is bound to show up with fear mongered scenarios about how the earth will fall from its axis and start tumbling toward the Sun if we aren't playing world globo cop.

Copyleft| 2.10.10 @ 9:23AM

Fortunately, the neoconservative dream of an American Empire is dead. The Bush presidency utterly destroyed it and proved it unworkable.

Time to start closing some overseas bases and spend our money here at home, yes? On OUR OWN problems, rather than everyone else's?

Nick| 2.10.10 @ 1:17PM

No.
It's time to close the bases and cut spending on useless welfare programs here at home.

I could slash the buget by half in one year.
If only you people would give me monarchial powers.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.10.10 @ 10:16AM

Doug,
OKOK, have you vented that out of your system yet?
heh.
A couple of thoughts:

I am not a "neo-con". I am FOR extending pax Americana for as long into the future as we can.

I have read some pretty interesting articles, here and elsewhere about the wholesale migration/non assimilation of muslims into western Europe....

Do our OWN national interests include providing a "force in being on the ground" just in case it turns very ugly there as a result?

I'm just trying to peer into the future a little bit ,OK? We have a lot of trade with Europe. I would hate to see it terminated or cut back because of internal disruptions on a broad scale there.
Best regards

S.L. Toddard| 2.10.10 @ 12:11PM

Heh.

Thomas| 2.10.10 @ 10:42AM

As a mutual defense organization, NATO is a joke. As a diplomatic organization, it is virtually priceless. Because of the accords which NATO oversees, the organization allows for two important things. The first is a place for the military leadership of the member nations to practice a form of military diplomacy unencumbered by the offices of state diplomatic departments. The second lies in its ability to coordinate defense of Europe much more quickly than was possible before its inauguration. Now, the only violent threat to European nations comes, not from traditional military forces invading the continent, but from irregular forces residing within those countries and from possible military disputes between European nations. What NATO does is keep peace among the nations of Europe.

As to the US defending Europe, that has never been the case. Prior to the Great Soviet Depression, US forces, even augmented by their European counterparts, could not have significantly slowed, let alone stopped, a Soviet invasion of Europe after 1950. They were there as a deterrent, nothing more. And that is one of the reasons for the maintenance of US troops and bases in Europe today.

There is a second reason for maintaining a US presence in Europe. That is forward support basing. US forces in Europe are hours closer to potential trouble spots in the Middle East and Africa than are troops stationed at domestic facilities. The military establishment learned from WWI and WWII that if you have to build and deploy your military forces to respond to significant military situation, you start out behind the curve. And when you are far enough behind the curve, you can lose the war and your homeland. The projection of force has been a valid, and widely used, tool of international diplomacy since the dawn of time.

Overseas military deployment and facilities are simply insurance. You can pay a little at a time to provide security or wait until the SHTF and spend more than you can afford to clean up the mess. And make no mistake, in today's heavily interconnected world, the US is going to pay to clean up someone else's mess, simply because to not do so would end up costing us much, much more.

S.L. Toddard| 2.10.10 @ 12:13PM

"The military establishment learned from WWI and WWII that if you have to build and deploy your military forces to respond to significant military situation, you start out behind the curve. And when you are far enough behind the curve, you can lose the war and your homeland."

An odd lesson to learn from two wars where we started "behind the curve", won, and did not lose our "homeland".

Thomas| 2.10.10 @ 3:10PM

Without the direct intervention of the US in WWI, the map of Europe might look very different today. In WWII, we came very close to losing it all and, for a time did lose all of Europe and most of the Orient and almost lost Australia. In the Pacific, only the lack of good communications and intelligence sources, as well as internal squabbling among their military establishment, caused the Japanese to undertake a more conservative strategy which allowed the US time to rebuild their fleet and draft and train an army.

Today, with modern communications and elint, these lacks are greatly reduced. Now there simply isn't time to build a reliable force in reaction to a major campaign.

Red Phillips| 2.10.10 @ 3:52PM

Thomas, "Without the direct intervention of the US in WWI" there likely would have been no WWII, because there would have been a stalemate and a more just peace. No Treaty of Versailles, no WWII.

Thomas| 2.11.10 @ 10:32AM

You may be correct that there would have been no WWII in Europe. The Germans would likely have continued their Imperial expansion unchecked, except by the Soviets. A German Eurpe would have drastically changed the world. But, do not forget the Japanese contribution to WWII. Japanese expansion in the Pacific would likely have resulted in a major Pacific war between the US and Japan and an alliance between Japan and Germany, with expanded German manufacturing capabilities unhindered by an on-going European war could have had disastrous consequences for the US.

Red Phillips| 2.11.10 @ 12:58PM

I really do not want every interventionist vs. non-interventionist thread to become an argument over WWI and WWII, but ya'll consider it your trump card so they inevitably do. America deliberately antagonized the Japanese as a way to back door us into the War in Europe. The Elite in America favored our intervention but the vast majority of the people opposed it. So they needed a provocation and antagonizing Japan was the way they got it. Some of the more conspiratorial aspects of this are debated, but the general outline is well accepted history. In fact, I have read neocons who praised FDR for his cunning in dragging a reluctant country to war.

Thomas| 2.11.10 @ 3:18PM

The old US forced Japan to attack them ploy. This, of course, totally dismisses the Japanese military occupation of Manchuria in 1932, the military campaigns that conquered southern China from Peking to Hainan Is at the southern tip of China. And the military incursions into French Indochina. Not to mention the East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere that was totally controlled by Japan whose edicts were enforced by Japan's military. Then there was Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy; a political-military treay that established the Axis.

What kind of response did this produce from the US? A series of congressional acts that established economic sanctions against the Japanese government. American goods and materials would no longer be used, by the Japanese, for such things as the Rape of Nanking.

The US did not attack japan. It did not attack Japanese interests in the Far East. It passed sanctions.

Japan attacked the US Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor for one reason. To eliminate the United States as an impediment to its Imperial plans in the Far East.

I realize that it is chic to blame the United States when others attack her. But, just as it does not fly with the Twin Towers on 9/11/2001 and it does not fly at Pearl Harbor on 12/97/1941.

Good try, though.

bogi666| 2.12.10 @ 6:36AM

NATO, alongwith the WTO, NAFTA, and all the so called "free" trade [it's really fleece trade] alphabet organizations are for the purpose of establishing governments which are not hindered by elected representatives.

Pingback| 2.10.10 @ 11:03AM

Doug Bandow » Blog Archive » Does NATO Matter? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Doug Bandow Promoting freedom in an unfree world. Home About Does NATO Matter? February 10th, 2010 Posted in Foreign Policy, Europe, War, NATO Certainly not to the U.S. At least, that’s what I argue on American Spectator online. Post a Comment Name (required) E-mail (will not be published) (required) Website Doug Bandow is Vice President of Policy for Citizen Outreach, a Washington-based grassroots…

Ray| 2.10.10 @ 11:14AM

The bases in Europe are there for one BIG reason, to prevent another war. Just because the USSR is no longer a threat, it doesn't mean another war will not happen in Europe.

The history of Europe over the last 2 thousand years (at least) is one of continual warfare within and amongst the European countries. Barely a few decades (at the most) have separated one war from another somewhere in Europe, UNTIL we stationed troops as a deterrence to yet another war.. It's not a coincidence that not s single war, has occurred anywhere in Europe over the last 60 years where America has stationed troops as a deterrent force.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.10.10 @ 11:56AM

Ray, Thomas,
Very well stated, gentlemen. Thank you.

MainStreet| 2.10.10 @ 12:23PM

To Copyleft - I am to the Right and agree with the article but it has nothing to do with being against defense spending. We must stay strong, but we should not be patsies. If Europe does not care enough to protect themselves , then they don't deserve our participation.

CalMark| 2.10.10 @ 12:32PM

The standing armies in Europe--Germany, in particular--are de facto armies of occupation. We are there--and should remain there, in perpetuity--to remind the Europeans, even if it's just nibbling at the edges of their consciousness--who won WWII and why. Apart from that, pulling out would be isolationism, which never leads to anything good.

WJ| 2.10.10 @ 1:03PM

The bases in Europe are there for the US's BENEFIT. As a few others have noted, having forward support basing is a HUGE logistical advantage for the U.S.A.

Just think about it for a second, what other country has bases in Europe, Middle East, Asia, and the Pacific. That situation is to our advantage.

Red Phillips| 2.10.10 @ 1:47PM

"Just think about it for a second, what other country has bases in Europe, Middle East, Asia, and the Pacific."

Exactly! The fact that no other country spends anywhere near as much as we do on defense is precisely the reason why we don't need to spend so much on defense. There is no imminent threat.

Thomas| 2.10.10 @ 3:19PM

I suggest you look to China for a potential future military threat. They have been engaged in a military build-up including space warfare developments, that goes far beyond their present and projected future needs. Unless, they are planning on taking on an enemy that is of a size and techno0logical sophistication of say, the US.

In the Middle East, every wanna be dictator and religious fruitcake is busily nuking up. In Europe, the internal strife due to unassimilated minorities, mostly from the third world, is rapidly reaching a breaking point. And the Russians are engaging in economic blackmail, due to their control of the lion's share of energy import into Europe, as they take steps to expand their territory to the limits of the old USSR. Yes, there are no imminent threats in the world.

Red Phillips| 2.10.10 @ 3:45PM

So Thomas, Russia and/or China are preparing to invade us if we let down our guard? Do you really believe that? Few if any interventionists believe invasion is imminent. What they really fear is that China or Russia or whoever is moving to assert/reassert influence in their sphere and thus challenge American world influence. This is circular logic. Unchallenged world-wide American supremacy is a necessary and good thing because it allows continued unchallenged world-wide American supremacy. But internationalism and globalism underlie this mindset (as well as utter disregard for the proper and limited constitutional role of the US government), and it is a mindset completely incompatible with authentic conservatism.

WJ| 2.11.10 @ 10:08AM

RP: Understand your points, but don't agree. Also, you may think you are the final decision maker on what is 'authentic conservatism", but you are not.

My point is that having those forward bases protects the citizens of the US and are worth the costs.

Russians and the Chinese are not going to invade us in the next 6 months, however we were attacked 9 years ago and it could happen again.

For example, it is my opinion that the war in Iraq led alot of terrorists who might have attacked on US soil to be engaged by our military in Iraq. In other words, the best defense is a good offense.

Red Phillips| 2.11.10 @ 1:13PM

"For example, it is my opinion that the war in Iraq led alot of terrorists who might have attacked on US soil to be engaged by our military in Iraq. In other words, the best defense is a good offense."

Explain this to me. So there were a lot of potential terrorist in Iraq who became otherwise occupied when we invaded Iraq? This is demonstrably not true. Iraq was not a hotbed of Al-Q or other terrorist activity, especially not in comparison to Saudi Arabia or some other countries we didn't see fit to invade. Or are you arguing the flypaper theory? That terrorist from elsewhere made there way to Iraq to fight US forces that otherwise would have come here to carry out terrorist acts? What is the actual evidence for this other than interventionist wishful thinking? Cite me some sources please. Thanks.

Thomas| 2.11.10 @ 3:38PM

Red,

You make two points that need to be addressed.
First, irregardless of the fact that the presence of Al Qaida was given as one of the reasons for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it was not the most important reason. In 1991, Saddam Hussein entered into a cease fire with the Coalition, of which the US was the largest participant. There was no armistice, no peace treaty; merely an agreement to a cessation of armed hostilities dependent upon Iraq adhering to several agreed actions. Over the next twelve years, Iraq continually violated this agreement. They unilaterally suspended weapons inspections, targeted and fired upon US aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone and violating the oil-for-food agreement. In 2003, the United States ended the Gulf War of 1991 by occupying Iraq. Have you ever wondered why few countries have pursued any kind of action against the US in this instance? It was simply because the actions of the US were completely leagl under international law.

Now, many mistakes were made with regard to the estimates of the reactions to the occupation and further were made with the rush to statehood. But, terrorists from outside Iraq did come there to fight the Americans. This is well established. Many times more of them were killed than were coalition troops. So strategists believe that this "flypaper effect" set back the activities of Al Qaiad and other Islamic terror groups by several years. As you point out, it didn't destroy them. Some of them have significant numbers of members in nations that the US can not legally invade, nor would that be in our best interest. Think of the Gulf region as Southeast Asia in the 1960's and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists as communists. Enter McNamara's domino theory. That is one of the reasons why US forces are in the region.

bogi666| 2.12.10 @ 6:42AM

There is no such word "irregardless" unless you want to use it as a double negative. Regardless does the trick and makes the point. Don't worry, our elected officails and other elite make the same error all the time.

WJ| 2.12.10 @ 9:52AM

As I stated, this was my opinion.

I make the assumptions that the most of the people our forces killed in Iraq were terrorists and therefore in simplistic terms, bad guys. These bad guys went to fight us in Iraq (alot easier to get to), and therefore could not focus their attentions on further attacks in the US.

Best defense is a good offense. Your Maginot line of thinking to have us retreat to our borders and hoping the Pacific and Atlantic protects us is, in my opinion, not a good idea.

For you to state with certainity what kind and the amount of terrorism that Saddam was sponsoring is ludicrous. Can you state your source inside his regime allowing you to say that there were no potential terrorists in Saddam Iraq??

Thomas| 2.11.10 @ 10:56AM

Red,
I direct your attention to Japan in the 1930's. An expanding regional economic empire coupled with massive military expansion. Now look at China, without the filter of the pro-China international media. You will see a pretty close parallel. Is anyone likely to attempt to invade the United States in the foreseeable future? No. Has any other country tried to invade the US since 1812? No. But, WWI started in the Balkens. WWII officially started in Poland in Europe and in an unimportant territory, Hawaii, in the Pacific.

This "sphere of influence" nonsense is an outmoded 18th and 19th century concept. When it took two to four weeks to cross the ocean from the US to either Europe or Asia, it had some validity. But now, the world has shrunk. ICBM travel time from one sidfe of the world to the other is less than thirty minutes. You can cross the Atlantic in two hours. Electronic communication crosses the globe in nanoseconds. Trade has been globalized. What happens in Indonesia, Pakistan, or Georgia now effects muck larger parts of the world, including the US. The problem with spheres of influence, is that sooner or later the collide. This causes friction and frictions causes a conflagration.

The anti-American mindset has always held that the US "dominates" the world. Yet, the US has never been one to dictate to the rest of the world. She does not seek to conquer other territories. The US has never attempted to build an empire. In fact, we have been trying for decades to get rid of the territories that we have acquired in various wars and, with exception of the Philippines, these territories refuse to accept independence.

Red Phillips| 2.11.10 @ 1:07PM

See my reply above re. Japan.

"Is anyone likely to attempt to invade the United States in the foreseeable future? No. Has any other country tried to invade the US since 1812? No."

Exactly. So we should consider ourselves Providentially blessed and mind our own business. We are surrounded on two sides by vast oceans. We have friendly neighbors to the north and south. We have a vast interior relative to our coastline. We have a massively well armed populace. We are immune from invasion. It is time for interventionists to relax and take advantage of the wonderful position God has blessed us with. Why must you insist on going forth seeking monsters to destroy?

Thomas| 2.11.10 @ 3:02PM

Wrong Red.

The Atlantic and Pacific are no longer any barrier. Missiles cross the space above them in minutes. Aircraft travel through the air above them in hours. And, electrons travel beneath their waves in nanoseconds. The Canadians may be friendly, by the government of Mexico is not. This country can not support itself cut off from a world economy. The computer you are using is probably assembled overseas. Its parts are definitely fabricated overseas. The packets of data you send to TAS more than likely are routed through several different countries. Most of our manufactured goods come from outside the country. Many of our remaining markets for our manufactured goods are overseas. Many of the countries of the world hold our debt instruments. In other words, as goes the world, so goes the United States. Isolationism is not longer a viable option.

Pingback| 2.10.10 @ 1:10PM

The American Spectator : The Cold War Is History | Insurance mesothelioma structured links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Mesothelioma And Asbestos Mesothelioma Symposium – 2008, Mesothelioma Cure » The American Spectator : The Cold War Is History ADVERTISEMENT. February 2010. Originally posted here: The American Spectator : The Cold War Is History Related posts: American history: The cold war American history . My blog for my Junior history... The American Spectator : Obama's Vision Through History Entrepreneurs enjoyed one…

davelnaf| 2.10.10 @ 1:12PM

Spending on Europe’s defense should have have ended decades ago. It will happen in the near future and perhaps abruptly, leaving the Europeans little time to get up to speed for their own continent’s defense. But, personally, I could care less. NATO’s contribution to Afghanistan amounts to placating the US and holding NATO together for the indefinite future.

I saw evidence of this when I worked in Afghanistan last year and the year before as a civilian contractor. There were occasional forays outside the wire (Bagram) by the troops of other nations, but almost ninety-nine percent of the time the troops going out through the ECPs were US. Most of the foreign militaries stayed in their areas of the camp or did minimal and far less risky work—such as clearing mines. I was told by some people who worked with the US military that our troops preferred not to work with foreign troops because they often found them to be inadequately trained. And adding insult to injury it seemed that many of the foreign troops were in many respects hardly more than freeloaders.

In the work I did as a civilian I got around the base and at one point I was in the place where they keep vehicles that have been destroyed by IEDs. The vehicles there were all US. For me that said all I needed to know about European co-operation.

Pingback| 2.10.10 @ 1:18PM

Chicago White Sox Cooperstown History Remix Tee – XX-Large | Chicago White Sox MLB An links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…front with parade of past team jerseys screenprinted on back. Price: $19.99 Rating: ( reviews) Chicago White Sox Cooperstown History Remix Tee – XX-Large Related Blogs on History The American Spectator : The Cold War Is History Tweeting a complete history of science klru blog » Blog Archive » New specials for Black History Month Related Posts Chicago White Sox 1983 Cooperstown Franchise Fitted Baseball Cap…

Red Phillips| 2.10.10 @ 1:51PM

Well, we predicted the interventionists would show up to defend the indefensible and indeed they have. Yeah, we have to have those forward deployment bases in places we ought not be so we can continue to intervene in other places we ought not be that are even further away.

Thomas| 2.10.10 @ 3:31PM

Every society has to have police, because to not have them allows the predators [the criminal element if you will] free reign to prey upon other citizens. And police are of considerably lesser worth if they simply sit in the police station and wait for a citizen to call and report a crime. They are deployed throughout the area to be protected. They don't sit in every house. There are not enough of them, nor could the citizenry afford to support them. But, there are police officers assigned to patrol areas. To be vigilant to identify and respond to criminal activity in an appropriate manner and to be a visible deterrent to criminals in the area. Now, if you look at the parts of the world where the US is actively intervening, you can count them on one hand. They are Iraq and Afghanistan. Actively fighting is intervention. Having troops stationed in a friendly country with the willing consent of that country's government is not intervention. No more so than the cop sitting at the counter in the local restaurant is intervention. Yet, the fact that simply having a base in a foreign country has been labeled as intervention by every potential enemy of the United States since the late 1800's. The same is true for calls for disarmament. The possession of weapons does not constitute a threat. It is the character and the intentions of those possessing the weapons that creates the risk.

S.L. Toddard| 2.10.10 @ 5:51PM

"Now, if you look at the parts of the world where the US is actively intervening, you can count them on one hand. They are Iraq and Afghanistan."

Oh. So we are not "intervening" (by your mistaken definition) in Pakistan, Yemen and Sudan as well?

Red Phillips| 2.10.10 @ 6:25PM

But Thomas, you are presupposing a right and a need for the US (a single nation) to police the entire globe. Your analogy doesn't work. The police in Thomasville police Thomasville. They don't police Venice. Who anointed us world police? Where is that in the Constitution?

"Having troops stationed in a friendly country with the willing consent of that country's government is not intervention. No more so than the cop sitting at the counter in the local restaurant is intervention."

As the good red-blooded American that I am sure you are, would it be OK with you if Mexico had troops stationed in America?

S.L. Toddard| 2.10.10 @ 7:58PM

Or Saudi Arabia?

Thomas| 2.11.10 @ 11:28AM

S.L., I'll answer you first. As this discussion is concerning the US military in foreign countries, let's look at US military "intervention" in Pakistan, Yemen, the Sudan and Saudi Arabia.

I am unaware that US military forces were actively shooting at the military or police forces of any of these countries. The Sudan has no real government at the moment and we have no overt military presence there at all. In fact, the liberal establishment desperately wants to commit US military forces to Darfur because of the incompetence of the UN backed peacekeepers from the African League. In Yemen, the US has a small number of military facilities, but that is with the approval of the Yemeni government. Saudi Arabia is much the same. It is in the interests of the both of those governments to have a US military presence in the country. Now, to Pakistan. The US is not engaged in using any military force against the sovereign forces of Pakistan. What is occurring there is US attacks against an outlaw force that is raiding across the border into Afghanistan while maintaining safe havens in Pakistan. Remember Doroteo Arango, aka Pancho Villa, in 1916. Similar to the taliban, he raided American interests in the Us and then retreated across the border into Mexico. The Mexican government was unable to stop him. The US sent a US Army force, under Gen, Black Jack Pershing, into Mexican territory and hunted down Villa and his irregular forces. This was predicated upon the need to protect the lives, property and interests of the American people. The same thing applies to the situation in Pakistan.

Your turn , Red.

There is a need for a world policeman. This is evidenced by the historical fact that when two people, or nations, exist in close proximity, one eventually covets what the other has and attempts to take it away, usually by force. Who better for that role, globally, than a nation that is demonstrably non-imperial, anti-authoritarian and basically isolationist, at heart. In other words the United States. See, police forces to not set policy, or make law. They simply protect the citizenry from the predations of others. Somebody has to do it.

Now there are two things wrong with the idea of Mexican troops stationed in the US. First, they are not needed, nor are they wanted by the United States government. Secondly, even if we did need foreign military troops here, given her history of military incompetence, Mexico would hardly be near the top of the list for that assignment.

Red Phillips| 2.11.10 @ 12:45PM

"There is a need for a world policeman."

Even if I grant this is true, which I don't, but just for the sake of the argument, what in the Constitution gives the US the authority to play that role?

"a nation that is demonstrably non-imperial"

But our desire to be world policeman IS imperial.

Thomas| 2.11.10 @ 4:03PM

"But our desire to be world policeman IS imperial."

This statement has always amazed me. The US does not exhibit any imperial characteristics. Where are the edicts governing the internal activities of other countries? The US engages in negotiations in areas where other nations actions directly effect the United States and its interests, but we do not issue edicts. Where is the military intervention to enforce those edicts? How much territory had the United States seized to occupy for an indefinite period of time. Where are our wars of colonial expansion?

And the United States does not want to be the world's policeman. But, someone has fill the vacuum. Who would you prefer? The old Soviet Union? How about China? Venezuela? Iran? I know, the UN. Just look at what a god job that organization does with peacekeeping duties. So pick someone else to be the world's policeman. Your choice.

Red Phillips| 2.11.10 @ 6:20PM

"Where are the edicts governing the internal activities of other countries?"

Thomas, we are attempting to tell Iran what kind of weapons they can and can not have. And in fact, a large contingent of the interventionist crowd here thinks we should bomb them if they don't comply. That is an edict, is it not? We were enforcing no fly zones in Iraq before we invaded.

"Where are our wars of colonial expansion?"

Your American Exceptionalism is cute in a way, but really. Ask the Indians. Ask the Spanish. Ask the Philippines. Ask Mexico. Ask native Hawaiians. And most near and dear to my heart, ask the Confederate States of America.

"And the United States does not want to be the world's policeman."

You want it to. Much of your notion of American Exceptionalism is tied up in such nonsense. My hunch is that you are actually heavily emotionally invested in it. Most interventionists are. It is part of what you believe makes America great.

“But, someone has fill the vacuum.”

No they don’t.

Red Phillips| 2.11.10 @ 6:30PM

Thomas, read this:

"G.K. Chesterton, with his usual gentle audacity, once criticized Rudyard Kipling for his “lack of patriotism.” Since Kipling was renowned for glorifying the British Empire, this might have seemed one of Chesterton’s “paradoxes”; but it was no such thing, except in the sense that it denied what most readers thought was obvious and incontrovertible.

Chesterton, himself a “Little Englander” and opponent of empire, explained what was wrong with Kipling’s view: “He admires England, but he does not love her; for we admire things with reasons, but love them without reason. He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English.” Which implies there would be nothing to love her for if she were weak.

Of course Chesterton was right. You love your country as you love your mother — simply because it is yours, not because of its superiority to others, particularly superiority of power.

This seems axiomatic to me now, but it startled me when I first read it. After all, I was an American, and American patriotism typically expresses itself in superlatives. America is the freest, the mightiest, the richest, in short the greatest country in the world, with the greatest form of government — the most democratic. Maybe the poor Finns or Peruvians love their countries too, but heaven knows why — they have so little to be proud of, so few “reasons.” America is also the most envied country in the world. Don’t all people secretly wish they were Americans?

That was the kind of patriotism instilled in me as a boy, and I was quite typical in this respect. It was the patriotism of supremacy. For one thing, America had never lost a war — I was even proud that America had created the atomic bomb (providentially, it seemed, just in time to crush the Japs) — and this is why the Vietnam war was so bitterly frustrating. Not the dead, but the defeat! The end of history’s great winning streak!"

Joseph Sobran

Red Phillips| 2.11.10 @ 6:44PM

And read this:

"In a foreign-policy context, “liberal” and “conservative” don’t have any real meaning and never have. When it comes to statecraft, the operative dichotomy does not pit Left against Right, realists against idealists, or (as President Bush has fraudulently argued) isolationists against those committed to engagement and leadership. The real divide today occurs between those who buy into the myths of the American Century and those who see those myths for what they are: once useful contrivances that have become a source of self-delusion endangering the national interest.

The American Century is a morality tale. It instructs and inspires but also warns. It tells of how Americans, having lost their innocence on Dec. 7, 1941, rose up in righteous anger to smite a succession of evildoers. The American Century began when the nation finally embraced its providentially assigned mission to spread liberty around the world. Present-day adherents to this school—self-described liberals like Peter Beinart no less than self-described conservatives like William Kristol—do not doubt that the events of Sept. 11, 2001 simply inaugurated the next phase of this grand undertaking. Absent a failure of nerve on the part of the American people—the bogeyman of isolationism always lurks nearby—final victory in the global war on terror is certain to be ours, thereby securing the utopia of permanent U.S. global dominion. The story of the American Century, endlessly reiterated by members of the political elite, has become our substitute for history.

In the opposing camp are those who credit America’s rise to power to something other than righteousness and a dedication to liberty for all. It was not righteousness that bought Louisiana, took California, annexed Hawaii, seized the Philippines, and converted the Caribbean into an American lake. Nor did past administrations collaborate with Stalin, court the Saudi royals, depose Mossadegh, befriend Somoza, arrange the overthrow of Diem, court Mao, and tilt in favor of Saddam against the ayatollahs because of our devotion to democracy and human rights."

Prof. Andrew Bacevich

Read the rest here: (It is the first article at the top.)

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/aug/28/00004/

Pingback| 2.10.10 @ 2:17PM

The American Spectator : The Cold War Is History | Breakings New links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…the maintenance of US troops and bases in Europe today . There is a second reason for maintaining a US presence in Europe . That is forward support basing. … See original here: The American Spectator : The Cold War Is History Share and Enjoy: Tags: basing--, estate, Europe, idea-what, reasons, Today Europe, Today Leave a Reply Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website america and-the…

Al Adab| 2.10.10 @ 2:24PM

Following the 9-11 attacks, NATO implemented article V which in essense states that an attack on one is an attack on all. This is the first and only time in NATO's history that the article was invoked. We might legitimately ask if the member nations have complied with their obligations under the treaty and that article. If not, does the U. S. have any further obligations under the treaty given the absense of a threat from the former Warsaw Pact? If NATO no longer defends anyone from anyone has it outlived its (sucessfully concluded) purpose?

Similar questions might be raised about U. S. participation in the U. N. Since this country foots the majority of the expenses and hosts that organization, what are the obligations to it from this country and from it toward this country? American participation in the Security Council would likely remain as would a role in WHO and related sections. But overall a cost benefit analysis would likely reveal that the U. S. receives little in return for its generosity.

In all candor there are likely other areas in which similar analyses might well serve to limit the American role around the world.

jomo2009| 2.10.10 @ 4:07PM

It's time for the Yanks to go home. We should maintain any base or air field that is necessaty to project American power into that part of the world. As for the rest, close up shop and leave. The EU nations have a combined population and GDP that's greater than the US. They're big enough and rich enough to defend themselves.

WJ| 2.12.10 @ 9:44AM

Good point. Any bases that we have outside of our territory should be evaluated on whether there is a military benefit to us, especially in logistics.

All other bases should be shut down.

Richard Baker| 2.10.10 @ 5:34PM

Was stationed in Germany in the early '70s and understood our being there then. Now, bring US Army Europe home and leave the Europeans to their own devices. Hopefully, we won't have to go back YET again and save their butts from themselves. Enough.

Pingback| 2.10.10 @ 6:01PM

The American Spectator : The Cold War Is History Staff links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

The American Spectator : The Cold War Is History Staff About Staff The Sponsors The American Spectator : The Cold War Is History The American Spectator : The Cold War Is History Tags: cheap-if-not, european, europeans, free-defense, gdp, military-spending, nato, routinely-enjoyed Too cold to snow? - The Hill's Pundits Blog Planet Gallifrey: Cold Blood! Icy…

Pingback| 2.10.10 @ 9:25PM

Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame Hosts Black History Month … | Green Bay Packers NFL An links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…» · Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame Hosts Black History Month Celebration … Excerpt from: Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame Hosts Black History Month … Related Blogs on History The American Spectator : The Cold War Is History Windows Live Messenger – a short history – Inside Windows Live … klru blog » Blog Archive » New specials for Black History Month Related Posts Why Aaron Rodgers Will Be a…

Pingback| 2.10.10 @ 9:30PM

The American Spectator : The Cold War Is History | Museum And Art links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Europe over the last 2 thousand years (at least) is one of continual warfare within and amongst the European countries. Barely a few decades … Read more from the original source: The American Spectator : The Cold War Is History Connect and Share Published On 10 Feb, 2010 Published By No Comments Filed Under: History Tagged: afghanistan-war, Art, barack-obama, europe, facebook, february-2010, History,…

Roy| 2.11.10 @ 2:55AM

"If they don't believe they face any threats against which they must arm, they have no reason to do more."

This is kind of where a total focus on self-interest falls short. It's true that, since they know we would probably never really let them get taken over, they can get away with free riding. But if they do this, they are lazy, worthless scum, and I "have no reason" to stop pointing this out. Even if pointing it out doesn't instill a sense of shame, at least it serves notice that we understand the type of people we are dealing with - and may raise the possibility of our kicking them to the curb at the first opportunity. The Europeans are not "entitled" to behave like this, in any sense other than that this behavior can't be stopped-ie, the same sense in which I am "entitled" to free ride on taxpayer-funded welfare. I am "entitled" to do so - and you're "entitled" to call me what I am, a lazy, leeching scumbag.

This however I don't like at all:

"but the U.S. would not be vitally affected by a still unlikely conflict involving former Warsaw Pact states"

Czech Republic and Poland are both former Warsaw Pact states. Are we really back to "who will die for Danzig"?

Pingback| 2.11.10 @ 4:23AM

Rebellion News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

belongs to the people, not the politicians! Sign up for our daily newsletter Subscribe through RSS Register Log in Links Archives Contact About Tom's 2 Cents Home Search for: Feb 11th 2010 The Cold War Is History (American Spectator – Doug Bandow) *Lead Story* Another Showdown at the Mullahs’ Corral (Pajamas Media – Michael Ledeen) *Must Read* Porkulus II: Return of the Phony Jobs Boondoggle…

Chris| 2.12.10 @ 1:03AM

Two stats for all of you to keep in mind, they will put WWII into perspective:

- Germany used ~85% of her military resources fighting the Russians.

- Germany lost ~88% of her soldiers fighting the Russians.

That should put the conflict into perspective.

Americans, thanks for showing up in the European theater of WWII.

Chris| 2.12.10 @ 1:10AM

Europe's biggest threat are Muslims WOMBS, not Muslim bombs.

The only reason European countries (and other US allies) send troops to Afghanistan is to gain US favour, like the stupid Poles who are still required to have visas to visit the US.

As my cousin in the Polish army said of his friends who went to Afghanistan, they went for money and adventure. They have no "patriotic" reason to be in Afghanistan. Another relative is very high up in the Polish military and admitted that it's just politics to gain US favour and concessions, yet he still can't go to the US without a visa.

The Europeans are not stupid, unlike American soldiers. They have no reason to die nor take chances in Afghanistan. And that goes for American troops as well. Unfortunately, Americans are not too bright.

Pingback| 2.12.10 @ 4:41AM

Fiat Uno Cold Start -15 | Fiat Automotive Marque links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Privacy Policy Sitemap Home Fiat Uno Cold Start -15 Written By Automotive Marques On February 12th, 2010 Fiat Uno Cold Start -15 Related Blogs on Cold Cold Starting a 1994 Nissan The American Spectator : The Cold War Is History Related posts: Fiat Brava 1.9 JTD Cold Star Chrysler Considers New North American Plant for Fiat-Based … Leave a Reply Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required)…

Richard Baker| 2.12.10 @ 10:04AM

Reinhard:
The brilliant Weimar Republic gave the world Schicklgruber. Way to go Germany. Such a crowning achievement for Germanic civilization. Oh wait, it wasn't the Germans, it was the Austrians. How foolish of me to forget.

geo8rge| 2.12.10 @ 11:07AM

The deal seems to be that the US provides the man power while Europe buys expensive possibly dubious American weapons like F-35, Trident, and picks up some of the basing costs.

My guess is many US states would stop sending National Guard forces if they had the choice. Which unlike Spain they don't.

jackUK| 2.12.10 @ 2:05PM

@Alan Brooks

As far back as western support for the Bolshevik takeover of Russia (the fact that the first government was 84% non-Russian most lead by Trotsky who was financed by New York banker Jacob Schiff and others came from New York) and support of anti-Bolshevik forces in strategic key locations oil natural resources in the Caucasus and Siberia which subsequently failed the main thrust of British lead foreign policy now the US is to fragment Russia into 3 separate states so US can have domination of Eurasian oil and gas using the Yugoslavian model. Proof of this you just have to read Zbignew Brzezinski’s book The Grand Chessboard and key positions he and his family clan and associates have been directing and steering US/NATO policy in Europe against Russia in 89 starting with Ukraine then the Balkans.

It was Britain and France that initiated WW2 using fascist allied states Japan and Nazi Germany as a proxy force to attack the Soviet Union.

And it was Poland that was mainly responsible for instigating WW2 with a secret alliance with Britain and France to intervene on Poland’s behalf if Germany invaded to seize territory given to them under Versailles with assaults and massacres of ethnic Germans which sparked a German intervention.
Although the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact has been deliberately misrepresented as a secret agreement to partition Poland it was actually a negotiated line of sphere of influence deemed in case war broke out between Germany and the USSR and the Polish state collapsed which it did when it abdicated abroad on the 15/16th of September in neutral Romania.

“Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.”

http://chss.montclair.edu/engl.....ews07.html

It was Britain and the US that started the Cold War towards the end of WW2 recreating NAZI affiliated nationalist groups to launch a guerrilla campaign in conjunction with MI6 and CIA trained in West Germany and Britain.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article30079.html

Stalin and the USSR’s main concern were shutting down the corridor in Eastern Europe used to attack the USSR.

The same can be said of China since the 1950's with the not so peaceful Tibetans and other groups.

This policy continues today supporting Islamic insurgents in the former Yugoslavia, Caucasus, Central Asia and China. That what Al Qaeda really is an international Islamic mercenary force created by the CIA to fight there proxy wars since 1979.

Pingback| 2.14.10 @ 8:44AM

Attack the System » Blog Archive » Updated News Digest February 13-14, 2010 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…War by Doug Bandow Specks and Beams in U.S. Foreign Policy by Jacob Hornberger Lebanon Backs Hezbollah Against Israel by Jason Ditz Obama Copying Bush-Era Detention Policies by Thomas Eddlem The Cold War Is History by Doug Bandow Obama’s Green Police by Norvell Rose “Yes, I Can Break the Law: I’m a PIG, Damn It!!” by William Norman Grigg Loyalty Test by Lew Rockwell PIGS Steal…

Richard Baker| 2.14.10 @ 5:38PM

George Drwiega:
After reading of Polish history in just the last few centuries, I can understand why you don't want anyone's troops on your soil. America needs to remove ours from all but the absolutely necessary places. WWII is over and the Soviet Union is gone. Time for ALL the Europeans to defend themselves.

Pingback| 2.15.10 @ 7:18AM

Soldiers and Cops: We Should All Take a Lesson links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…a story you will never forget! Visit http://www.MarcusEngel.com for more information! Related blog posts If ?cops don't make laws, they just enforce them?, why are police ... The American Spectator : The Cold War Is History How to Slaughter Your Own People (Without the International ... Iloilo Views | Partisan image of cops The American Spectator : Civil War By Any Other

Pingback| 2.16.10 @ 11:49AM

Boy Scouts of America and Leadership Coaching links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…or contact one of our Regional Managers at (801) 569-3444 Related blog posts Cubs Program | Buy Sports Memorabilia Developing Story: Irrelevant Eaton ?Hungry For Glory? As Democrat ... The American Spectator : The Cold War Is History Lambda Chi Alpha | UNLV Procrastination

diaphant| 2.25.10 @ 10:14AM

You are very strange people i can say. Why do you base your theories on shalow facts? Why do you think that Afganistan is less threat to Europe with american forces in it? Do you have any facts or links to this sort of information? I have facts that before this american campaign to Afganistan the amount of heroin exported from this country only increased! This heroin goes to europe, it goes to america. How does it make Europe more safe? Why does European people must give their lives for reach american/great britain bastards?

PS. And for those of you who thinks that america provides security to europe i can advise to check the numbers of american soldiers in Europe.

ms office 2007| 3.12.10 @ 10:54PM

Office 2007 Pro
Office 2007 Ultimate

Pingback| 3.17.10 @ 2:24PM

National Debt Up $2 Trillion on Obama’s Watch | WeCharts.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Related posts on afghanistan advertising Afghanistan - Advertising the Attack The American Spectator : CIA's Vulnerability Is Congenital Related posts on barack-obama afghanistan The American Spectator : The Cold War Is History Obama on wars, Haiti, economy : Roland S. Martin The American Spectator : CIA's Vulnerability Is Congenital Related posts on business barack-obama Expose Obama » Blog Archive »…

www.ghdoutlet-au.com| 3.19.10 @ 2:22AM

GHD was kmown as hair straighteners and ghd straightners, which was authorized online seller provides all kinds of hair straighteners,pink ghd,purple ghd,babyliss. By visiting ghdoutlet-au , you will find what you want and made yourself more beautiful. Come and join us http://www.ghdoutlet-au.com/