We tried disarmament during the conservative

heyday you yearn for so much. The U.S. had

no military capacity to speak of between

1866-1918 and between 1919-1943.



In other words, under the hegemony of the

Republicans, the U.S. was armed for a total

of about 18 months.



A lot of brave young men got killed by that

policy.

More got killed when the Democrats armed us though, didn't they?

Harry, I'd like to introduce you to W. Wilson, President of the United States from 1913 to 1921 and F.D. Roosevelt, President from 1933 to 1945.



I'd also note that during the period at issue we continued to settle the western US, fought the Indian Wars, defeated the Spanish Empire, enforced the Monroe Doctrine, invaded various Central and South American countries a number of times, invaded China, cowed large swathes of the rest of the world with our Great White Fleet, sank most of the relevant bits of the Japanese Imperial Navy, defeated Rommel, took Sicily and began the defeat of the Japanese Empire and Nazi Reich.



I should probably also mention that in January 1893, the US Marines landed on Oahu and abetted a coup against the legitimate Hawaiian government, which lead to the annexation of the islands by the US government. Of course, the annexation was not recognised by

President Cleveland (Democrat, 1885-1889, 1893-1897).

Lord almighty, is that an Onion
article?

Bob Dole didn't call them the Democrat Wars of the 20th Century for nuthin'

Harry,



Puh-leeze.



Penny-pinching the defense establishment is a horrendous tactic well-practiced by both sides of the aisle. Let us remember, on the one hand, that it was Truman's first Secretary of Defense, Johnson, who gutted the US military, so that Task Force Smith was just about exterminated in Korea in 1950. On the other hand, the European balance was rectified through the efforts of one Ronald Reagan.



But, most important, it was a bipartisan effort that led to the US Navy construction bill of 1940, that laid the groundwork for the two-ocean navy that defeated both Germany and Japan.



All of which, of course, leaves out the cultural and historical influences of the late 1800s-1914, which were revived in the inter-war years. Isolationism during that time was hardly unique to the Republicans. William Jennings Bryan, frex, hardly supported a larger military nor a more active foreign policy. Similarly, the 1920s in America, like Great Britain, were marked by the belief that war wasn't going to happen again (see "Kellogg-Briand" as the ultimate triumph of that sort of stupidity). And FDR was hardly building battleships, tanks, and an Air Force in his first term in office!



I think both
parties can be blamed for failing to account for defense in the pre-WWII era. What counts far more is what they've been doing since the mantle of world leadership has fallen on our shoulders....

And then there was Mubarak's useful comment yesterday that to promote peace in the Middle East, the U.N. should force Israel to give up her nukes. Ah, those peace-loving Egyptians....

Harry - "no military capacity to speak of between 1866-1918 and between 1919-1943"? "Small Wars of Peace" by Max Boot blows that statement completely out of the water.

Nonsense. The ability to defeat a 10th rate power (fif that isn't an oxymoron) does not make the U.S. a power.



The fleet that defeated the Spanish was not too impressive. Its shooting was well under 1 percent hits, several of the Spanish "warships" were unarmed, and the largest ship in the U.S. Navy (the Texas "battleships") were rated by us as "coast defense ships" and by the rest of the world as "second-class battleships."



During most of the late 19th century, the U.S. Navy was only the fourth or fifth most powerful in the western hemisphere, behind Peru, Chile, Brazil and sometimes Argentina. So much for defending the Monroe doctrine.



Orrin is the one who declared the period one of conservative ascendancy, and despite occasional Democratic presidential terms, I agree with that.



The two-ocean Navy bill was pushed through by Vinson, a conservative Democrat, and would have gone into effect a lot sooner if Roosevelt and Vinson could have overcome Republican and Progressive resistance.



I picked 1943 to be precise. The United States Navy was still smaller than the Japanese Navy until sometime in late 1943.

I'm surprised that Carter's interview on Larry King has gotten so little coverage, both in the mainstream media and in the blogosphere. It's been all over the European news, and the guy said a lot of remarkable stuff that begs for the Iron Fisk.



To pick one example (specifically, the one you quoted, "One of the things that the [US] [...] has not done is to [...prohibit...] the arsenals of biological weapons that we ourselves have".



Is Carter:

a) A liar;

b) An idiot;

c) History's greatest monster, or

d) All the above?



You be the judge.



http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/bw.htm
is rather illuminating. Most importantly:



Subsequently, the 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction was developed. The treaty was ratified in April, 1972, and went into effect in March of 1975.





In anticipation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, President Nixon terminated the United States offensive biological weapons program by executive order. The United States adopted a policy to never use biological weapons, including toxins, under any circumstances whatsoever. National Security Decisions 35 and 44, issued during November 1969 (microorganisms) and February 1970 (toxins), mandated the cessation of offensive biological research and production, and the destruction of the biological arsenal.



So I would say that the US has its own order in house, and that this has been the case for more than thirty years. I guess news travel slow sometimes, since Carter still seems to be unaware of this.

I'm surprised that Carter's interview on Larry King has gotten so little coverage, both in the mainstream media and in the blogosphere. It's been all over the European news, and the guy said a lot of remarkable stuff that begs for the Iron Fisk.



To pick one example (specifically, the one you quoted, "One of the things that the [US] [...] has not done is to [...prohibit...] the arsenals of biological weapons that we ourselves have".



Is Carter:

a) A liar;

b) An idiot;

c) History's greatest monster, or

d) All the above?



You be the judge.



http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/bw.htm
is rather illuminating. Most importantly:



Subsequently, the 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction was developed. The treaty was ratified in April, 1972, and went into effect in March of 1975.





In anticipation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, President Nixon terminated the United States offensive biological weapons program by executive order. The United States adopted a policy to never use biological weapons, including toxins, under any circumstances whatsoever. National Security Decisions 35 and 44, issued during November 1969 (microorganisms) and February 1970 (toxins), mandated the cessation of offensive biological research and production, and the destruction of the biological arsenal.



So I would say that the US has its own order in house, and that this has been the case for more than thirty years. I guess news travel slow sometimes, since Carter still seems to be unaware of this.

Note that peace-creep Carter attacks us for not "giving" as much is foreign aid as the Norwegians. Please consider that the United States bears the cost of Imperium for the benefit of the entire world. The scourge of Communism was not eliminated without cost, and we do not now hold back the present darkness without cost. Humanity benefits from what Americans spends on weapons.