Geopolitics and the Constitution

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Good thoughts FTR. I have been accused of seeing the constitution as sacrosanct. While I would not go that far, I do think that it is to be held above all else in political discussions and dealings.

 

[fromtheright]

I thought the only thing we would agree on is that Huntsville is a great place to live!

Perhaps I should have added: that and that there is no sweeter accent in the world than the Irish--including the US southern accent.

 

[fromtheright]

BTW, I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussion so far but am a little disappointed that others haven't joined us. There are several that I would love to hear from on this issue. I'm afraid I would insult someone in naming names by leaving someone out, though.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I'd love to hear more thoughts as well. About time for evening Sunday School here.

 

[poncho]

I've been reading Washington's farewell address, read it afew times actually. In paragraphs 21-26(+) he seems to be speaking of foreign policy and gives us an idea of what he considers good policy.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation....

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

If I'm reading Washington correctly, I think he would disagree with the way we have pursued foreign policy after WW2 and during the cold war.

What do you guys think some of the realities and complexities that we are now and were faced with in the last 60 years would help to change Washington's mind about political connections with foreign countries?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Thats the question Ponch. Washington could not have foreseen the globalism we are involved in today. Interaction with foreign powers is inevitable now. Isolation is unfeasible. I think he would have had to say something different if made the speech in 1992 instead of 1792.

 

[fromtheright]

Poncho,

I agree with C4K (Twice in three days! My head is swimming!). President Washington did not foresee the extent of global trade and our dependence on it (though we certainly had international trade at the time of the Founding, but even then they were able to boycott British goods pretty readily and effectively prior to the Revolution). Our dependence on oil and the global nature of that market, though, would have astounded him. The threats against us are also global, from nuclear missiles to Saudi Arabian jihadists flying planes into buildings. This requires our being involved in both diplomacy around the world and in having the military power to respond, both conventionally and otherwise. Our strength and our moral leadership around the world make us an even more inviting target. Because Europe has been moving to a position of foreswearing military power as a tool, that vacuum grows more powerful. That vacuum draws other aggressive, belligerent, and ambitious states to fill it, such as China. Islamists, who know only the sword as a means of dealing with others, respect only the sword in response. I mentioned earlier that Jefferson responded with force to the Barbary pirates. Well, now jihadists threaten American interests in far more places than the southern Mediterranean.

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by C4K:
Thats the question Ponch. Washington could not have foreseen the globalism we are involved in today. Interaction with foreign powers is inevitable now. Isolation is unfeasible. I think he would have had to say something different if made the speech in 1992 instead of 1792.

I think Washington was accutely aware of globalism back in the day C4K. Maybe not with all the subtle complexities or things we see as complexities today. Globalism is nothing more than the usurping of soveriegnty, real wealth and liberty of a nation(s) for the "common good of all" through treaties and ill advised alliances advertized 24/7 as "good things" by those with the will the power and the capital to do so.

The way he scrutinized treaties makes me think he knew that was one of the big dangers involved in them. I don't believe Washington was an "isloationist" at all nor do I believe it would be to the best interests of this country to be so, what I am reading in his words is more of an admonishment to be very careful of those we do decide to be in league with. Supporting a dictator as we have so often done and making alliances with one faction over another causing instability as a tactic is following in the footsteps of say the Empire of Great Britain, Spain, or France of his day. Certainly he was privy to the ways of empire having witnessed them and their methods of expansion and maintenance. We have become Washington's biggest nightmare imho, the empire he dreaded.

Add to this all the treaties of the past and present that has caused instability and insecurity by being alligned with unscrupulous charcters like OBL, Saddam, Chalabi, Noriega, and Karimov to name a few makes me all the more sure we are, our own worst enemy and cause more insecurity and instabilty by following the track we've been on for some 60 years at least and the last thirty or fourty years in particular.

I reckon Wasington saw his share of the empire's divide, usurp, and conquer playbook to understand it's basics and tried to pass that knowledge or at least the inspiration to study it very closely on to us. His speech in 1995 would mean the same thing as it did the day it was written the only difference would be today, Washington would be the subject of propagnada (name calling), ridicule (isolastionist), his sources would scoffed at, (conspiracy theorist(?)) and he would most likely be a third party candidate and I would be voting for him and be accused of being unpatritotic, uncaring and uninformed.

[ September 26, 2005, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: poncho ]

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
C4K,

We can get a glimpse of the time , however, by looking at President Washington's Farewell address.

That is exactly my point: are we governed in any way, except by example, by President's Washington's advice? His opinion that particular agreements of the time are unnecessary, in fact, leaves it open for us to gauge the utility of particular agreements.

No we are not governed by President Washington's advice nor are most of us inclined to even figure out what he was warning us about in the first place.

Peace and tranquility does not now nor has it ever benefited the elite in any age be they the King of Europe, the Emperor of Rome, on up to the grand poobahs of PNAC and the barons of the corporate borg of today sitting on and ruling vast empires of wealth and power. Including the very power to influence all our decisions on a global scale in real time.

Divisions and war on the other hand has always held some benefit for the elite at the expense of the population. Washington didn't need the ability to see into the future because he knew how those in power will seek to expand and maintain that power.

A word from Samuel Adams.

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution,
are worth defending at all hazards;
and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.
We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors:
they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure
and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence.
It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation,
enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us
by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them
by the artifices of false and designing men."

I reckon ole Sam had a good schooling in foreign affairs also. They both left the individual issues up to us to decide but, I feel they both knew how craftily constructive those in power were and that a large politically illiterate and divided population would except policy as being "for the common good of all" when in reality it is probably closer to being "for the common good of the few".

[ September 26, 2005, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: poncho ]

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Interesting thoughts (thanks for the year correction BTW, don't know where I got 1792). I had not thought of Washington in a global context before. Perhaps he still would have been leery of alliances. I too am pretty sure that is he were running for office today I would be voting for him as a third party candidate. Neither party would accept his policies.

I do think there is wisdom in "looking back" for counsel on our options today.

 

[billwald]

The Constitution can't be living because the Lincoln REvolution killed it. We are governed by presidential executive orders and half of them are secret. In other words, for all we know, there is an executive order which declares Baptists to be domestic terrorists with a future arrest date.

 

[fromtheright]

poncho,

[Washington] would most likely be a third party candidate and I would be voting for him and be accused of being unpatritotic, uncaring and uninformed.

Now that's a cheap shot.

Saying that you would be one of the few enlightened souls to vote for George Washington, and we'd be calling you unpatriotic. That hurts. Makes it sound like we'd be yelling "Crucify him!" 2,000 years ago.

Everyone knows he would run as a Republican.

what I am reading in his words is more of an admonishment to be very careful of those we do decide to be in league with

And certainly sound advice.

his sources would scoffed at, (conspiracy theorist(?))

Hey, Washington was a conspirator. That Mason thing, you know.

Peace and tranquility does not now nor has it ever benefited the elite in any age be they the King of Europe, the Emperor of Rome, on up to the grand poobahs of PNAC and the barons of the corporate borg of today sitting on and ruling vast empires of wealth and power. Including the very power to influence all our decisions on a global scale in real time.

Don't you think business (except for the arms industry, obviously) prefers peacetime? Doesn't the stock market dip in times of military trouble? Also, is it only the elites who gain and thus promote war? Do you completely rule out that wars are and can be fought over noble ends, even if it is resisting aggression? I'm not cynical enough (though perhaps naive) to believe that wars are fought only for monetary gain. Sure, conspiracy theories abound, but had we not responded to the Japanese, there wouldn't have been a war in the Pacific. Had the Brits not resisted and we not entered, there wouldn't have been a Western front. Lord knows the French equivalent of a Western front was the beaches at Dunkirk.

 

[poncho]

Now that's a cheap shot. Saying that you would be one of the few enlightened souls to vote for George Washington, and we'd be calling you unpatriotic. That hurts. Makes it sound like we'd be yelling "Crucify him!" 2,000 years ago.

I keep trying to enlighten you brother. By the power invested in the state by the Patriot Act(s) George Washington would most likely be investigated as a "person of special interest" and placed under a gag order so he couldn't talk about it. Matter of national security.

Maybe he would be spared crucifiction, but enough doubt would be cast on him to make his message null and void.

Hey, Washington was a conspirator. That Mason thing, you know.

Yeah I heard that too. He was also considered an insurgent and terrorist for his acts against the Crown, offenses he would have hung for had he not have won our indepedence from tyranny. Most people think the founders and the patriots were rebeling against King George and British rule only but after reading the founder's and other patriot's thoughts through various forms it seems clear to me they were rebeling against the tyranny of foreign influence and the "artifices of false and designing men" (they must have been with Al Queda!).

Opinions may differ, this is mine.

Don't you think business (except for the arms industry, obviously) prefers peacetime?

Depends on which business is most connected to political power I guess. If it's got anything to do with banking, energy, prescription drugs including vaccines, reconstruction, military,
security, intelligence and even the police force they benefit from chaos destruction and desease and strangely they are also the biggest most consolidated and successful businesses and or consumers of tax money through ever greater funding.

Doesn't the stock market dip in times of military trouble?

Sure does, and those with certain foreknowledge can use put options to reap the quick profits.

Also, is it only the elites who gain and thus promote war?

They don't have to promote war, all they need do is create and promote divisions in the chosen populations. Our ignorance of how those tensions are actually created and why is usually enough to bring about war between the targeted factions given enough time and false flag attacks carried out by agent provocateurs and blamed on "the opposition".

Do you completely rule out that wars are and can be fought over noble ends, even if it is resisting aggression?

No I don't many of the the native American tribes were warring factions without the guidance of the elite and carried on for a couple thousand years that way. Then the European foreigners showed up and showed them how to really control the territory and turned the savage to peaceful means by broken treaties the musket bayonet scalping iron the gallows, and the reservation in less than 200 years.

I'm not cynical enough (though perhaps naive) to believe that wars are fought only for monetary gain.

No they are all fought for God and country to make the world safe for democracy and in the name of freedom and liberty or because our buddy got himself into a fix and needs our blood and treasure to make it all right again. Hardly ever for monetary gain, yet there are always those that not only gain monetarily but consistantly gain monetarily.

Sure, conspiracy theories abound, but had we not responded to the Japanese, there wouldn't have been a war in the Pacific. Had the Brits not resisted and we not entered, there wouldn't have been a Western front. Lord knows the French equivalent of a Western front was the beaches at Dunkirk.

Sure there are conspiracy theories like the embargo of oil and raw materials the Japanese needed to continue their war. Which gave them two choices, admit the defeat of their imperialism early or go to war with America.

Without the entangling treaties of the European countries before world war one and the Versailles treaty afterward...

1. The first world war would have most likely been a local conflict and not escalated to a full grown world war involving many countries.

2. Hitler would have never made it past the rank of corporal.

 

[LadyEagle]

No they are all fought for God and country to make the world safe for democracy and in the name of freedom and liberty or because our buddy got himself into a fix and needs our blood and treasure to make it all right again. Hardly ever for monetary gain, yet there are always those that not only gain monetarily but consistantly gain monetarily.

Amen. While somebody else's kids are dying and getting limbs blown off for it.

 

[fromtheright]

poncho,

For all that cynicism about power, though I understand you would probably call it realism, what is so noble, then, about the Constitution? For all these "realistic" (I'll put quotes around it from my perspective; I understand you would not) views, was the Constitution not simply the triumph of a bunch of DWEM's (dead white European males) over other DWEM's (and ultimately over native Americans), a power struggle that put the consolidationists in power? If so, what value is there in such a framing document if it perpetuates the end result of a power struggle over 200 years ago? Why should we not consider ourselves loosed from their cold, dead hands to a different outcome to that struggle? Is the Supreme Court not simply the latest set of protagonists in a division over the spoils of politics?

 

[poncho]

For all that cynicism about power, though I understand you would probably call it realism, what is so noble, then, about the Constitution?

Are you saying I am cynical about power or George Washington? You've read what both of us has to say about power, which one do you reckon is the more cynical?

Was Thomas Jefferson cynical of power also?

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it

Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.

Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.

I believe Samuel Adams already answered the question of a noble constitution.

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution,
are worth defending at all hazards;
and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.
We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors:
they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure
and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence.
It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation,
enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us
by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them
by the artifices of false and designing men."

The more I read the words of these men the more I see them relying on history as a teacher of how other men were brought into bondage through the misuse of power. Talk about cynicism.

I'll try to give you my opinions on the other questions you asked later on tonight FTR. But now I have a couple questions for you.

The founders of this country, were they rebeling against the oppression of one tyrant dated to the later part of the 1700's or were they rebeling against all tyrants and forms of tyranny past, present, and future?

Was it cynicism that made them try to use the "chains of a constitution" to bind the government because they had a questionable misrtust of government or was it history and experience that drove them?

And if it was history and experience then, what history were they refering too?

 

[poncho]

Tyranny
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
Etymology: Middle English tyrannie, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin tyrannia, from Latin tyrannus tyrant
1 : oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man -- Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>
2 a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant
3 : a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock -- Dixon Wecter>
4 : a tyrannical act

Merriam-Webster

TYR'ANNY , n.


1. Arbitrary or despotic exercise of power; the exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government. Hence tyranny is often synonymous with cruelty and oppression.

2. Cruel government or discipline; as the tyranny of a master.

3. Unresisted and cruel power.

4. Absolute monarchy cruelly administered.

5. Severity; rigor; inclemency.

The tyranny o' th' open night.

Webter's 1828

 

[fromtheright]

poncho,

Are you saying I am cynical about power or George Washington?

I think you're cynical about the actions of anyone in power. Your quotes from Thomas Jefferson are well noted though (my all-time favorite Founder quote, BTW, is another Jefferson, on power, from the draft of the Kentucky Resolution: "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."). I think it is a cynicism misplaced, though, when used with a broad-brush over all examples, rather than looking to see whether there might be a valid justification for an action, even if in addition to a motive of power. Is the U.S. ever right to use force, even though someone may profit from that use (though certainly we should be careful of motives)?

The founders of this country, were they rebeling against the oppression of one tyrant dated to the later part of the 1700's or were they rebeling against all tyrants and forms of tyranny past, present, and future?

They were rebelling, at various points in the Revolution, against Parliament or George III, or both. Though the DoI's examples pointed to the King, the colonists also sought to persuade the King to defend them against Parliamentary oppression. Their rebellion was against a specific set of tyrants, though, but they did so with an understanding of the nature of tyranny as they were students of history. The system they set up was to protect the people from tyrants of the future.

Was it cynicism that made them try to use the "chains of a constitution" to bind the government because they had a questionable misrtust of government or was it history and experience that drove them?

In that case, yes, it was realism because they knew man's nature. But your answer seems to be that no matter what is done by any public servant, its purpose is to expand power. But with what I see as your broad brush, it seems hard to distinguish whether anything done by government has been or even can be done with a truly public purpose--even defense of this country, as someone would gain by building that war machine also. By what I see as your view, there is no geopolitical strategy, involving even the ability to use force or the threat to do so, outside the shores of the U.S. that can be held without being an attempt to rob the taxpayer. Rather than question whether such a strategy is wise, whether it would accomplish its ends, whether the ends are even appropriate or reasonable, your judgement seems to be that these are invalid questions or even meaningless, or even worse, a subterfuge. Sure, it is a good thing to be careful and, yes, vigilant, but to constantly question the motives of military actions that, ultimately you simply don't believe are appropriate seems to me to close out debate whether we should even have a national security strategy.


BTW, you may disagree, but does the question make sense?

 

[poncho]

I think you're cynical about the actions of anyone in power.

I see where you are coming from now. This isn't about the constitution and foreign policy this is about me. Ooookay.

I think it is a cynicism misplaced, though, when used with a broad-brush over all examples, rather than looking to see whether there might be a valid justification for an action, even if in addition to a motive of power. Is the U.S. ever right to use force, even though someone may profit from that use (though certainly we should be careful of motives)?

I think it is you're trust that is misplaced, though, when used with a broad-brush over all examples, rather than looking to see whether there might be an ulterior motive for an action, even if in violation of the law. It is always easier to convince ones self of the justifications of an action if we have subscriptions to the justifing justifiers justifications weekly than to actually look for signs of tyranny by learning to recognize it for what it is and how it gets sneaked past us by the artifices of false and designing men or by studying their motives and those of the justifing justifiers justifications of a said individual action, and if you do happen to study the justifing justifiers justifications and find there is no justification for an otherwise unjustifiable action the blame can always easily be laid on the shoulders of the opposing party in the end so everything is justifiably fine and on it goes.

It is right for the U.S. to use force in defense of the country. Where does defensive means end and offensive means begin? At the door to your own house.

But your answer seems to be that no matter what is done by any public servant, its purpose is to expand power.

What are the odds a public servant isn't going to try to maintain and/or expand power? What are the odds a public servant can't be compromised? How many ways are there to compromise a public servant? Al Capone had a few interesting ways to compromise a public servant such as buying them outright, when that didn't work blackmail and murder was in order, but those days are long gone, aren't they? Nobody uses those old tactics anymore.

But with what I see as your broad brush, it seems hard to distinguish whether anything done by government has been or even can be done with a truly public purpose--even defense of this country, as someone would gain by building that war machine also.

This is no longer about what the founders thought. It's down to you and me now eh? Alrighty. I reckon your brush is every bit as broad as mine, the difference between us imho is that the reasons and justifications for going to war come easier to you than they do to me. I reckon anyone can be intimidated enough by a perceived outside threat to get blindsided by the inside threat. The citizens of the Weimar Republic can testify to that in swastikas. Afterall it was their leaders and their mainstream media telling them someone else was out to get them, why shouldn't they believe them and hand over all the power and control their leaders asked for?

I spend my time reading the words of George Washinton, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison among others in defense of the constitution against tyranny and you spend your time listening to the words of George Bush and read Foreign Affairs to hear the justifcations for the expansion of power abroad and the suppresion of rights at home. They say it's all okie dokie folks "trust us we're the government" the end justifies the means, and overall with a broad brush approach you believe them.

By what I see as your view, there is no geopolitical strategy, involving even the ability to use force or the threat to do so, outside the shores of the U.S. that can be held without being an attempt to rob the taxpayer.

What with all the billions of magically disapearing dollars from the Pentagon alone I would think people would pay closer attention to how their money is spent. But given the time it takes to go through one or two news cycles all is forgotten.

I don't care much for the type of geopolitics the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski draws up and the CFR makes justifications for.

It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization. Zbigniew Brzezinski The Grand Chessboard. Page 35

Notice his choice of words here..."the pursuit of power" how much nobler can it get? He admits it's about "the pursuit of power" but the CFR sell it as being a noble and righteous cause for the spread of democracy the march of liberty to the oppresed masses of other lands and the ringing sound of freedom around the world, etc, etc.

On behalf and in defense of your position, I do suppose it's easier to beleive the fantasies than the the realities when faced with an ever more powerful and dasterdly enemy threat from the outside. Especially when the threat is hyped and propagandized on every news channel 24/7 by dare I say the orchestrated information arm of the justifing justifiers? Yeah, I did dare.

Sure, it is a good thing to be careful and, yes, vigilant, but to constantly question the motives of military actions that, ultimately you simply don't believe are appropriate seems to me to close out debate whether we should even have a national security strategy.

Okay so you made up your mind prior to posting this thread that only you can be correct is getting to be quite evident here. I try to explain my opinion on what the founders perception of tyranny was/is by digging into the minds of the men who actually wrote our founding documents then you give me the impression that you would rather make excuses for abuses than to protect the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. But don't worry it's probably just me, I never did understand neopatriotism anyway.

[ September 27, 2005, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: poncho ]

 

[fromtheright]

poncho,

This isn't about the constitution and foreign policy this is about me. Ooookay.

This is no longer about what the founders thought. It's down to you and me now eh?

Wait, wait, wait a minute, poncho. None of what I said is or was meant to be an attack on you. I'm sorry if you took it that way. The current debate on this thread happens to be between you and me and what each of us thinks about these issues. If someone else pops in, the debate will be about what they too think about this issue.

I think it is your trust that is misplaced, though, when used with a broad-brush over all examples, rather than looking to see whether there might be an ulterior motive for an action

Perhaps I am naive but when a higher motive is stated and the end result is consistent with that motive, I believe that should be recognized. Perhaps an action also serves a baser motive but as long as the higher end result is achieved, it should be recognized, if that means the enthusiasm should be duly tempered.

It is always easier to convince ones self of the justifications of an action if we have subscriptions to the justifing justifiers justifications weekly

Wait a minute: am I understanding that now I'm being judged because I subscribe to periodicals you don't approve of, that for some reason you're better because you don't? C'mon on, poncho, this was a debate between the two of us, stating our opinions. Please tell me I'm misunderstanding your point, a very real possibility.

Where does defensive means end and offensive means begin? At the door to your own house.

No alliances with other countries?

[T]he reasons and justifications for going to war come easier to you than they do to me.

I can live with that statement, so long as you don't understand by that that I'm ready to go to war on any pretext that is thrown out.

I spend my time reading the words of George Washinton, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison among others in defense of the constitution against tyranny and you spend your time listening to the words of George Bush and read Foreign Affairs to hear the justifcations for the expansion of power abroad and the suppresion of rights at home.

I'm still not sure why you want to turn this into an attack on what I read, for Pete's sake. BTW, I don't read Foreign Affairs. For your info, I read a great deal of the Founders, as well as those who influenced them. BTW, for your quote from Brzezinski, sounds like you read more CFR stuff than I do. In any case, we disagree on "the menace of the CFR", but that's a subject for another thread.

On behalf and in defense of your position,

Gosh. Thanks. I think.

I do suppose it's easier to beleive the fantasies than the the realities when faced with an ever more powerful and dasterdly enemy threat from the outside.

How would you have us respond to that threat?

Okay so you made up your mind prior to posting this thread that only you can be correct is getting to be quite evident here.

Geez, poncho, I thought we were having a debate. Sure, I have an opinion and sure, I think I'm correct. You certainly don't seem too shy about defending your own views. And yes, I came into this thread with an opinion, just as I come into every thread with an opinion, or would you grant that consideration to only yourself? I make no apologies for doing so, nor do I expect you to. I do come into a thread ready to debate with someone, and yes, of course, that includes defending my position, but I also come into it ready to learn. You have made some excellent points, which I have acknowledged. I don't expect you to acknowledge whether I have or to agree with me, but neither do I expect to be attacked for simply having an opinion and defending it.

I had thought this would be an amicable debate of our opinions and the bases for same. I'll let other readers here decide for themselves who here has been thin-skinned.