More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Students of history have always recognized that armament races are a symptom of international friction—not a cause of it.
is this true? seems like it would be a positive feedback.
As a Conservative, I deplore the huge tax levy that is needed to finance the world’s number-one military establishment. But even more do I deplore the prospect of a foreign conquest, which the absence of that establishment would quickly accomplish.
Let them understand that victory over Communism must come before the achievement of lasting peace.
Would Goldwater say that we have achieved that position today? With the Cold War over, is the United States now well-situated to make sacrifices for the cause of world peace?
By measuring each aspect of our foreign Policy against the standard—Is it helpful in defeating the enemy?—we can understand why the past fourteen years have been marked by frustration and failure.
Who is "the enemy" in the world today?
Given the dynamic, revolutionary character of the enemy’s challenge, we cannot win merely by trying to hold our own.
In retrospect: did we do this? Was the end of the Cold War a case of America wisely "holding it's own", and biding it's time until the Soviet Union inevitably imploded? Or did the U.S. 'beat' the Soviets through force?
We may not make foreign peoples love us—no nation has ever succeeded in that—but we can make them respect us. And respect is the stuff of which enduring friendships and firm alliances are made.
The freedom fighters must understand that the time and place and method of such uprisings will be dictated by the needs of an overall world strategy.
Whether justified or no, this does seem to firmly place the U.S. goals as aggressive, offensive domination an destruction of all Communist regimes. The U.S., if it took this position, could not be claiming to be acting in a strictly defensive role: it's explicit goal would be the destruction of other governments, whether they were expansive or no.
