How the US Gets Away with its Foreign Policy

[danielost]

Of course it was a coup... even a former military individual is actin as president

Wake up America!

No, not america wake up obama. But, I think he isn't calling it a coup so he can keep sending them stuff.

[Harte]

IMO, we can buy friendship.

I don't care what either Paul has to say about it.

Harte

[danielost]

We might be able to buy friendships, but when the chips are down we end up going it alone.

[questionmark]

We might be able to buy friendships, but when the chips are down we end up going it alone.

You never get more than what you paid for...sometimes a little less.

[Yamato]

IMO, we can buy friendship.

I don't care what either Paul has to say about it.

Harte

Based on what? Egypt? Afghanistan? Iraq? Pakistan? What did our "friend" Saudi Arabia do for us in the build up to 9/11? Squat. Pakistan? Put the guy who helped us get bin Laden in prison.

What did Israel do for us after 9/11? Plotted how it would drag the US into another war on its behalf. The war mongering started immediately and the government got to the busy task of morphing Osama bin Laden into Saddam Hussein and by 2003 the great switcheroo was going full tilt. The people are so dumb and nonchalant, they didn't even care. The democrats pretended they were against the wars, but they didn't give a screw.

We wouldn't practice Israel's policies over here and our law doesn't allow it, so why are we paying for them over there? It might not be illegal to pay for others to do illegal things but it's hypocritical not to believe in our own standards enough that we can't even apply them in our policies with foreigners. As the past 30 years in Egypt proved, Jimmy Carter's welfare doesn't give them any incentive to be a free society, it gives them the incentive to serve our political interests.

Is the USG your friend because it gave you money? I hope not. I hope we don't assign ridiculous emotional reactions to foreigners that we don't apply to ourselves, because humanity somehow changes when we cross the magic lines drawn by government.

[danielost]

We should cut out all foriegn aid. Except for defending japan, we're the ones who forced them not to build a military. And, isreal because most of the american population is part of the lost ten tribes making the jews our cousins.

[+DieChecker]

We should cut out all foriegn aid. Except for defending japan, we're the ones who forced them not to build a military. And, isreal because most of the american population is part of the lost ten tribes making the jews our cousins.

Japan is still a major powerhouse economically. I say let them build their own military. We shouldn't have any soldiers overseas unless we are busy conquering someone.

Japan has a GNP a Third greater then Germany, with only China and the US having a higher GNP. For such a small country that is tremendous. Imagine what the US could be doing if we did not have to spend anything on the military/defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Edited July 31, 2013 by DieChecker

[danielost]

Yea but it was the us military that wrote their current constitution. Maybe we should offer them statehood.

[+DieChecker]

Yea but it was the us military that wrote their current constitution. Maybe we should offer them statehood.

Hummmmm... How to turn this into a Presidential campaign????

If we absorbed Japan, and absolve them of their US debts, and they of our debts, that would go a long way toward clearing up the national debt, and it would put us Way out in front of China economically.

Bwah ha ha......

[danielost]

Japan is still a major powerhouse economically. I say let them build their own military. We shouldn't have any soldiers overseas unless we are busy conquering someone.

Japan has a GNP a Third greater then Germany, with only China and the US having a higher GNP. For such a small country that is tremendous. Imagine what the US could be doing if we did not have to spend anything on the military/defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

This may be true, but only because california is a state. I am waiting for china to imlode. When that happens we can find some other country to support beyond what they can support.c/=

[danielost]

Hummmmm... How to turn this into a Presidential campaign????

If we absorbed Japan, and absolve them of their US debts, and they of our debts, that would go a long way toward clearing up the national debt, and it would put us Way out in front of China economically.

Bwah ha ha......

We already forgave their debt, for sending some advizers to afghanistan. Bush did this one.

[Harte]

Based on what? Egypt? Afghanistan? Iraq? Pakistan? What did our "friend" Saudi Arabia do for us in the build up to 9/11? Squat. Pakistan? Put the guy who helped us get bin Laden in prison.

What did Israel do for us after 9/11? Plotted how it would drag the US into another war on its behalf.

There's a difference between playground "friends" and geopolitical "friends."

If you think our "friends" overseas do nothing for us, then you need to get your head out of the sand before someone sneaks up and kicks you in the ass.

Power will be projected. Regardless of how you'd like the world to be, this is simply and eternally true.

The only questions are who will be doing the projecting of the power, what sort of power will it be, and what will be the likely end result?

Harte

[RavenHawk]

[1]If I give you every benefit of the doubt, you still follow the neocon foreign policy to a T.

[2]If you can appreciate the benefits of libertarianism at home, let's set a good example to the world and they'll follow it.

[3]Like we picked ourselves up, they can too.

[1]You’re not required to give anything, just show that you have something more than a naïve worldview.

Except it’s not the neocon foreign policy. In this case, the neocons have captured the essence of the Constitution when it comes to the Common Defense. No where in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the power to wait for an enemy to attack before raising and supporting an army to defend this nation. Now does it? It is however, within their power to do everything possible to prevent an attack on this nation. That is what “Common Defense” means.

[2]Libertarianism is domestic. Let’s leave it at home. Do you really think that the rest of the world is as naive as you think? If we set a good example has no bearing on the world doing the same. They will not follow it. They will take advantage of it. All nations are opportunistic. They follow their own interests which won’t be what we want. Why do you think I always harp about what other nations were doing to us in our early years? This is the source for war and that won’t ever change.

[3]That’s fine, let them do so.

Charity should also be an important example of letting the people be themselves. Let people pay for the things they want to pay for. There aren't a thousand foreign exceptions to this principle. Foreign problems are less important than domestic ones. If I don't want the government paying for things domestically, I'm twice as unlikely to want it making America pay the price for its foreign wars.

You just don’t get it do you?! You bring up Germany in the aftermath of WWI. You claim that you don’t think that destroying Germany’s economy was a smart idea and I agree. That was the point behind the Marshall Plan in the aftermath of WWII. We learned from the error of WWI. The degradation of Germany’s economy in the 20s lead to the emergence of Hitler. Rebuilding Europe after WWII prevented another Hitler, the next war, and prevented Soviet domination. Didn’t your dad tell you growing up that when you go into nature, to leave things as you found them, if not better? Do you consider that welfare or just wise management? The Marshall Plan was a variation of “if you break it, fix it”. That has more to do with preventing the next war than welfare. In today’s world we are not as isolated as in the past. 9/11 proved that. So foreign issues are just as important as domestic ones. We can’t lose sight of that. That was what lead to the fall of Rome. We can pay whatever price now or later. The one thing that is for sure is that it will always cost more later.

It's an example. It might be the best example for you because it's your only example. Germany in Europe warned us of rapidly growing military force and increasingly bold and belligerent actions.

It’s the optimal example but it happens all the time. Take your pick. History is full of examples of nations building up their forces and those around them do not do enough to counter that buildup and those nations that do not prepare, pay the price. Take some time and look at the last 5000 years of warfare.

We don’t have a rapidly growing military neither bold nor belligerent actions (maybe bold and preventative). But the key is belligerent action. Iran is a good example of belligerent action.

[1]There's been nobody like Hitler since Hitler but we do hear the neocon mill chugging out comparisons.

[2]Nobody's suggesting not to have a strong defense.

[1]Does there need to be? On the other hand, Saddam was real close. There was also Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Daniel Ortega, Hussein Aidid, Jean-Claude Duvalier, Omar al Bashir, etc. If the shoe fits, the comparison is appropriate. Incorrectly labeling it neocon does not relieve you of the responsibility. Each one of these was a Hitler or a close misfire. They pop up all the time and it is only a matter of odds before one takes hold.

[2]You are! You want to handcuff our defense.

I'd like to cap annual military spending to $100 billion over our 2nd largest competitor in the world. I think that's a reasonable metric to keep up with the Jones's and not spend hundreds of billions of dollars more than we should be.

Do you realize what that does? You basically limit our ability to defend ourselves for the only reason that you think it costs too much. Defending this nation should never “cost too much” whatever we spend on it. It also enables the next 4 or 5 countries (allies or not) the opportunity to combine to attack us. Thinking that all our current allies are going to stay that in the future is folly. The best way to defend and prevent war is to make it so undesirable to attack us, that the thought of it is ridiculous. Defense and infrastructure should be the lion’s share of the Budget. We are clearly spending hundreds of billions less than we should be. We’ve dropped from spending more than the next 25 nations in defense to only spending more than the next 16. That is a troubling stat. This drop has occurred real quickly. It probably wouldn’t take more than a couple hundred billion to raise us up to the next 30+. That’s not really a whole lot, probably still less than 25% of the current budget (up from 22%).

There are so many other uses for that money than fighting commercial wars in the Middle East.

It is so very interesting that you make such a fuss about using the term ‘preventative’ to describe war, yet when it meets your needs, you will use your own cute adjective as in ‘commercial’. War is war. Right now the Middle East is the source of non stable nations and if we don’t *mind* this pot, *IT WILL* erupt into our laps.

Making a mess in Afghanistan and now being hopelessly tied up with Pakistan are important reasons to question our foreign policy.

You are partially right. The mess in Afghanistan is coming from not recognizing that it is a multi generational endeavor (it is not an endless war). If we are going to prevent the next war we need full commitment now and not putter around. Go all out and occupy these nations as England did in India. It will pay off in the long run and save millions of lives and trillions in treasure. Pakistan is a bit different. They are in a nuclear standoff with India but they are also a key player of the covert in the region. That is a vital asset and a foot in the door for when we need it. Yes, it is also volatile but worth the expense at this time.

There is no room for rhetorical justification of that kind of money. The US government should be curing cancer if it's so big and so bad, it should find something benevolent to do and win the respect back of the rest of the world.

It’s hardly rhetorical. It’s based on lessons learned. Your kind never seems to learn until it’s too late. What good is it to cure cancer if we are being attacked? Or even ignoring attacks? Or the threats? Curing cancer would be the last thing to invest in then. Peace does not occur in a vacuum. It can only occur when you have a strong defensive umbrella in place. That umbrella requires regular maintenance. You don’t win respect from weakness. That only makes you a target. You win it through fear and awe. Once you have respect then you can show benevolence. That is a potent combination in leadership. From this comes motivation for the entire world to work on a cure for cancer. It’s leadership that we need, not dictatorship and definitely not weakness.

A neocon would say that. After all that trumpeteering about Ahmadinejad for all these years Ahmadinejad is leaving, what use is there to talk about how dangerous he is now? That doesn't serve your agenda anymore so you dump it.

No, a neocon wouldn’t be the only one that would say it. Do you understand the political structure in Iran? It’s the Supreme Leader that runs the country. And that is Ayatollah Khamenei. He tasks the President to be his puppet. It is Khamenei that selects who runs for President. He will usually pick a couple of moderates and a couple of radicals. Then the people get to choose which one. This is hardly democratic because the Supreme Leader is still assured that his man gets in. The President then runs the nation day to day with the Supreme Leader directing the course. Imanutjob had a long run and his actions were approved by khamenei all the way. So Imanutjob may be gone but Iran is still a threat. So there’s nothing for me to dump. All your statement here shows is that you are totally ignorant in how the world works.

This is exactly what the neocon news media has drummed into all of our heads. "The ultimate proof....the mushroom cloud!"

That’s not only the neocon news media. It is anybody that is intelligent and understands history and track record. You’re a Progressive nut that is too dense to learn. It doesn’t have to be a mushroom cloud. You are just fixated so much on a mushroom cloud that you are incapable of seeing the danger.

Wow that's just crazy uncle neocon right there buddy.

Well, when will it not be crazy uncle neocon to you? Usually when it is too late and you wonder why we don’t do more.

I don't have it both ways, I don't like foreign welfare and that's another reason why I don't like war. War creates the motives for politicians to start taking Americans' moneys and spending it on foreigners. It's another reason not to have war.

You do want it both ways. You have stated so in this thread. That’s why I pointed it out. And, it’s far from foreign welfare. If you don’t like war, then you should be ok with investing in preventing war. War doesn’t create motives for politicians to start taking our money. It’s all the overly expensive and ineffective social programs they try to strap on us so that they can get their names on statues. So that they can feel good about themselves.

http://www.goodreads...ler-i-would-not

https://www.facebook...150469079685802

Has Judge Napolitano had that on his Facebook page since 2011 and he's been wrong the whole time?

Yes, he is. I’ve shown you the original quote and pointed out that Eisenhower never did say that Hitler created preventative war. Those references you include are wrong. You are wrong! My guess is that Napolitano is not aware of the original quote and I wonder what he would do if it is ever pointed out to him?

So getting miffed about a war and stealing from foreign economies is a good reason for more war? Again this is a reason not to have war.

No, it is not the reason to not have war. But it was the reason for the Marshall Plan as I had stated. Wars will always be with us. They are part of our lives. We don’t need to egg them on but neither should we remain naïve. We must be strong and prepared for the next one and if possible prevent the next one, until the next one. It is a continual cycle that will never be broken. And in some ways, it is beneficial for the health of civilization. Survival of the fittest and all that. Cull the weak from out of the herd so that the rest remain healthy.

Finding people who believe in statist profiteering rackets in foreign lands for commercial and political reasons....that's how to find a neocon. I think another huge lesson WWII taught us is that the people of the world don't like an aggressor. Hello, aggressor.

There are other reasons besides statist profiteering. Stabilization is far more important. But you seem to not understand that it is all political. This is nothing but politics and diplomacy. Let’s see, every time we invaded a nation in WWII, we became the aggressor. Did we stop at the borders of Germany and Japan when we freed the other nations of their troops? No we didn’t. We pushed on to their capitals. We became the ultimate aggressor. So look in the mirror aggressor. There is no smiley face.

[RavenHawk]

In 1792, President George Washington, Secretary of War Henry Knox, and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson selected with Senator James Monroe leading Congress to ratify the appointment of Major General Anthony Wayne to create and lead a standing army to defend our frontier. Now, either all of these men were violating the very same document that they created and sacrificed for or they were well within their Constitutional powers of prudence and vigilance. My bet is on the latter.

“Bayonets in the Wilderness” by Allan D Gaff is a great resource on a little known era in our history. For completeness, I’m including the Introduction. Please pay close attention to the bolded last part of the second to the last paragraph. I happen to be a descendant of Anthony Wayne and this period holds great interest for me so I probably know more about it than most people. And I agree with Roosevelt, that if it wasn’t for Wayne and the Legion, THESE United States would not exist as we know it today. If you currently live west of the Mississippi, north of the Ohio, or even Georgia on south, you owe everything to a standing army and excellent leadership.

The American Revolution did not end with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. British authorities refused to relinquish their military posts on U.S. soil, using them as bases to supply the Indian nations that inhabited the Northwest Territory. Emboldened by British provisions, arms, ammunition, and encouragement, these Indians waged a bitter war against American settlers on the Ohio River frontier. In 1790 Pres. George Washington sent an army under Brig. Gen. Josiah Harmar against this loose confederacy, but his force was defeated on two separate occasions and forced to retreat. The following year, Washington sent a larger army, this one commanded by Maj. Gen. Arthur St. Clair, to chastise the Indians who had beaten Harmar. Handicapped by a lack of provisions and equipment, St. Clair’s force was ambushed on November 4., 1791, and suffered the most humiliating defeat ever inflicted upon an American army, losing one-half of its numbers in about three hours before running from its wilderness battlefield. These two victories gave the Indian confederacy large quantities of arms and supplies, as well as the confidence to boldly reject peace proposals from the United States.

To regain the honor of his young country, President Washington formed a third army, styled the Legion of the United States, and selected Maj. Gen. Anthony Wayne to lead it. A Revolutionary War commander of note, Wayne was given plenary powers by the administration. With his decisions subject only to review by President Washington and Serrretary of war Henry Knox, the general would conduct his Indian campaign as he saw fit. He would organize the army, decide when and where it would be deployed, and fight it wherever and whenever he chose. If he found that circumstances warranted the action, Wayne was given authority to fire upon British troops stationed on American soil, even if that action provoked a second war with Great Britain. He came perilously close in 1794 to starting such a conflict at Fort Miamis along the Maumee River, a post that British forces had constructed by order of the governor of Canada in clear violation of international law. This was not the only time soldiers from Wayne's legion encountered foreign troops. British officers and artillerymen had accompanied the Indian army in its attack on Fort Recovery on June 3o, 1794, and a company of British-Canadian militia actually fought against wayne at the Battle of Fallen Timbers on August 20 of that year. The Revolution had supposedly ended in 1783, but there was still a shooting war between Britain and the United States in the Northwest Territory.

Although British troops did play a role against Wayne in his campaign, subjugation of the Indians and bringing peace to the frontier were his primary goals. These tasks seemed overwhelming. Every piece of equipment required by the legion-paper, weapons, uniforms, sheet iron, shoes, buttons, needles—had to be purchased in the Atlantic states, carted overland to Pittsburgh, then shipped down the Ohio River to Fort Washington at Cincinnati. From there it had to be hauled overland, generally by packhorses, to the advanced forts. Construction projects were often delayed until soldiers could craft the tools they needed. The firm of Elliott and Williams had contracted to provide rations for the legion but found itself with an overextended supply line and unable to meet its obligations. A schism developed within the officer corps, some aligning themselves with Wayne and others with his second in command, Brig. Gen. James Wilkinson, a suave and charismatic officer who was also notoriously corrupt and a traitor. Wayne's force was always understrength, and many of his soldiers were of poor quality, resulting in a constant stream of deserters. There were no reliable maps of the territory, and even basic information regarding the rivers and streams was nonexistent. The list of problems confronting Wayne was almost endless.

In his typical fashion, the general methodically overcame each of these obstacles. Supplies were hauled forward by convoys of hundreds of pack animals, protected from Indian attack by large escorts of troops. When Elliott and Williams failed to meet its contractual obligations, Wayne ordered his quartermaster to take over operations and bring forward what he needed. The general encouraged his favorite officers and shifted troublemakers to out-of-the-way posts. He countered desertion by instilling discipline, tempered with patience and mercy, and encouraging his soldiers to believe in themselves and the power of the legion. To counter the lack of knowledge about the wilderness in which he must maneuver, General Wayne employed scouts and spies familiar with the region, including men such as William Wells and Christopher Miller, who had formerly been Indian captives. Despite every obstacle in his path, Wayne, who proved to be as adept at organization and supply as he was at battlefield command, remained focused on his mission to defeat the Indians and establish peace.

Wayne’s unique organization of his command allowed him the flexibility to operate successfully in any situation. In addition to the standard branches of service—infantry, cavalry, and artillery—he employed riflemen, light infantry (armed with muskets of his own design), and mounted volunteers from Kentucky, who added mobility and firepower to the main body. This arrangement allowed Wayne to locate the enemy, absorb his attacks, and respond with overwhelming force at the critical point. His army was screened by parties of scouts on foot while other scouts, called spies, ranged far afield on horseback, even penetrating into Indian camps in search of intelligence. Standard tactics were adapted to the wilderness environment. In the field, Wayne had his men on the move by dawn and marched them rapidly until early afternoon, when he invariably halted and fortified a camp against surprise attack.

Although generally successful in raids against convoys of wagons and packhorses that supplied American forts, the Indian confederacy failed miserably in an ill-advised attack upon Fort Recovery, which had been built directly on top of General St. Clair's battlefield. An ambush on the morning of June 30, 1794, succeeded in destroying a supply convoy, inflicting heavy casualties among both soldiers and horses. But the Indian army, estimated to number as many as two thousand warriors, could not seize the fort, whose garrison, augmented by survivors of the convoy escort, numbered less than two hundred. This successful defense of Fort Recovery was the key episode in Wayne's campaign, and the Indians lost their best chance to defeat a significant detachment of the American force.

When Wayne's legion finally met the Indians in battle upstream from Fort Miamis, its success was assured. With a loss that would hardly merit a mention in later wars, General Wayne defeated the Indian arrny at Fallen Timbers and, more importantly, crushed the Indian spirit. With an understanding of the psychology of warfare, Wayne constructed forts upon the battlefields of both Harmar and St. Clair as permanent reminders of U.S. superiority. When Indian nations sued for peace, Wayne convened a grand treaty negotiation at Fort Greeneville that would set the standard for future treaty talks. But more importantly the nation had seen that a standing army, no matter how much it smacked of British rule over its colonies, was a necessary evil for enforcing the peace and assuring freedom and prosperity on the United States’ first frontier. America would hereafter bargain with the Indians from a position of strength.

Anthony Wayne had an influence that lasted long after his defeat of the Indians. His army was a training ground for officers who would win fame by their own exploits. William Henry Harrison, one of Wayne's aides, would eventually be elected president of the United States. John Adair, Charles Scott, and John Posey would be elected governors. William Clark would team up with Meriwether Lewis, a late addition to the legion, for their historic journey to the Pacific Ocean. Zebulon Montgomery Pike would explore the trans-Mississippi frontier. William Eaton would lead a small band of U.S. Marines across hundreds of miles of desert “to the shores of Tripoli.” Some officers who stayed in the army would become generals in the War of 1812. All owed a debt of gratitude to Anthony Wayne and his military leadership. Unfortunately, this period of American history has become a history based upon myth and legend, making a careful examination of Wayne’s significant contributions long overdue. Far from the popular impression that he was somewhat crazy (or “mad"), Wayne was in fact a thoughtful, resolute, prudent, and diplomatic officer whose successful campaign brought an end to forty years of border war and a final conclusion to the Revolutionary War. According to no less an authority than Theodore Roosevelt, “It was one of the most striking and weighty feats in the winning of the West.”

[Yamato]

If you felt you were in need of an historical justification for defeating enemies in war, there's an infinite supply of that. And enemies should be defeated as quickly as possible, not sustained by commercial interests and prolonged as long as possible in wars of attrition like Iraq and Afghanistan. We're the political will of the President away from ending these wars and starting new ones. That's the unconstitutional reality we live in today and we're going broke while globalists who like a little American blood 'n brain sacrifice want nothing more than to keep the big ponzi scheme going. The sacred military industrial cow needs to be slaughtered because our policies that you advocate are so insane, they're threatening our security while destroying our liberty.

There simply is no authority to take the country to war without declaration, or for the federal government to occupy hundreds of military bases. You excuse undeclared war like Article 1 was multiple choice or doesn't exist at all, I'm not sure. The Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to be world policemen. You are one of the biggest advocates of the nanny state on this message board, you just think that spending it on foreign countries keeps you from the socialist and progressive labels you hand out regularly to others. I would not be so sure. This is precisely why you fail the test on whether you're a statist or not. Progressives and socialists that you complain so much about want big domestic interventionist government. You on the other hand, being a neocon, want big foreign interventionist government. Big foreign interventionist government is even worse than the big government advocates who at least understand the value and Constitutionality of spending American money on America.

The federal government is not authorized to police the world and soldiers aren't policemen either. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes government's global militarism that you champion. Wars are started by Presidents without declaration, and ended by Presidents on a whim, without the rule of law or rules from Congress.

[+DieChecker]

The federal government is not authorized to police the world and soldiers aren't policemen either. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes government's global militarism that you champion. Wars are started by Presidents without declaration, and ended by Presidents on a whim, without the rule of law or rules from Congress.

So do you feel that the whole of the 200+ years where the US has been sending out "Defensive" Forces is Unconstitutional? I think that since there is 200+ years of precedent that the US FedGov does indeed have these powers. They are not spelled out in the Constitution, but they have been Taken/Created by the FedGov and are actually LAW at this point.

It is impossible to just through 200+ years of legislation out and go back to only Straight Constitutional law and expect the US to not fall to pieces. It just simply is not going to happen. The best that could be done is that each piece by piece bit of legislation must be examined and voted on if it is necessary or not. And my best guess it that little to None of the powers the FedGov has now would be given up.

What percentage of the Federal Law is straight from the Constitution? Very little. The Constitution itself says that the Congress can enact such laws as they deem necessary. And I would suspect that would include overseas bases as long as they are not used for illegal war. And illegal war itself is not even a clear term. Jefferson himself sent ships to the Barbary coast with no war declairation, but only instructions to provide defense to US shipping there. There have been ways around the rules since day 1.

[Yamato]

So do you feel that the whole of the 200+ years where the US has been sending out "Defensive" Forces is Unconstitutional? I think that since there is 200+ years of precedent that the US FedGov does indeed have these powers. They are not spelled out in the Constitution, but they have been Taken/Created by the FedGov and are actually LAW at this point.

It is impossible to just through 200+ years of legislation out and go back to only Straight Constitutional law and expect the US to not fall to pieces. It just simply is not going to happen. The best that could be done is that each piece by piece bit of legislation must be examined and voted on if it is necessary or not. And my best guess it that little to None of the powers the FedGov has now would be given up.

What percentage of the Federal Law is straight from the Constitution? Very little. The Constitution itself says that the Congress can enact such laws as they deem necessary. And I would suspect that would include overseas bases as long as they are not used for illegal war. And illegal war itself is not even a clear term. Jefferson himself sent ships to the Barbary coast with no war declairation, but only instructions to provide defense to US shipping there. There have been ways around the rules since day 1.

I think national defense and international offense are two different things. Ravenhawk does not. What do you think?

If the Constitution doesn't matter anymore, we should probably be addressing that question a lot more often.

Not all laws are constitutional and many laws that weren't took a long time to get stricken down, but they do get changed. The path to a more Constitutional foreign policy isn't that long of a road to travel down. We shouldn't need an extra bill that requires Congress to declare war when it's already there, but due to attitudes and policies we're living with today, that redundancy seems to be necessary.

These issues of Constitutionality always end in the Court, but they never start there. I think it comes down to politics and the political action of the day. Are we going to be awash with nationalism and think that the USA is exceptional in the world with its global militarism, or are we going to balance our budget and live within the constraints of only as much government as we can afford?

[acidhead]

Are we going to be awash with nationalism and think that the USA is exceptional in the world with its global militarism, or are we going to balance our budget and live within the constraints of only as much government as we can afford?

Patriotism is the highest form of collectivism.

[Yamato]

When has the government had everything figured out domestically? We should have learned by now that the best results aren't achieved from a parade of politicians who act like they know better than everyone else. I'm tired of DC bureaucrats hiding in their secret rooms telling us who our friends are in the world. They're not too bright domestically and they're a ruinous wreck with their foreign policy. Let's let the marketplace figure out who our friends are. Let the people spend the money as they see fit. Words for-or-against certain things are nice, but what we sink our money into is the most honest expression of what we really think.

I'm tired of subsidizing the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. I wouldn't pay any of these groups, organizations or countries one thin dime or drip one drop of American blood for. Our bumbling bureaucrats aren't smart enough to figure out who our friends and enemies are. I defer to the higher intelligence that is all of us. Bureaucrats are more than enthusiastic about making those decisions for us though, and it takes a special kind of statist to give government that much money and that much trust with how to spend it.

[Yamato]

Patriotism is the highest form of collectivism.

I don't know what the hierarchy of collectivism looks like but Patriotism is certainly in it.

[+DieChecker]

I think national defense and international offense are two different things. Ravenhawk does not. What do you think?

I think one can look like the other. It is something that needs to be judged situation by situation.

I do agree that just allowing the President to send whomever he wants wherever he wants is crazy. Iraq War 2 never should have happened. There was no call for the level of invasion we did there.

[Yamato]

I think one can look like the other. It is something that needs to be judged situation by situation.

I do agree that just allowing the President to send whomever he wants wherever he wants is crazy. Iraq War 2 never should have happened. There was no call for the level of invasion we did there.

I agree that an "authorization to use force" (ala Iraq War 2) deferring to the UN and masquerading as a declaration of war is crazy. Now we don't even worry about such silly authorizations or that pesky War Powers Act. Obama just wants to drop a bomb somewhere and down it goes. Nobody seems to care. We're far worse off due to our foreign policy today than we were 10 years ago, but it seems that actually protesting the govt's insanity overseas is only fashionable among democrats when a republican is president.

It's a moral hazard when one looks like the other. Of course situations should be judged, but with what principles? If we don't have principles, we're just going to leave it up to our bureaucrats? Not hold them to any standard of behavior? I thought the one thing just about all of us shared was our distrust of government?

National defense is the use of force to defend our country from attack. If our country is not being attacked nor is under imminent threat of being attacked, it's no longer national defense. The Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to attack anyone the President wants without the Congress even if the govt did follow the nuts and bolts of waging war and it can't even handle that.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Yamato

[Harte]

I agree that an "authorization to use force" (ala Iraq War 2) deferring to the UN and masquerading as a declaration of war is crazy. Now we don't even worry about such silly authorizations or that pesky War Powers Act. Obama just wants to drop a bomb somewhere and down it goes. Nobody seems to care.

A great many people care. It's just hard to care very much about people who keep electing Obama.

In fact, we are almost on the verge of not caring.

Harte

[Yamato]

A great many people care. It's just hard to care very much about people who keep electing Obama.

In fact, we are almost on the verge of not caring.

Harte

People can only elect him twice and they've done that already; and pinning our hopes on future unknown bureaucrats has never seemed to work in the past so why start now?

[Yamato]

I think that President Obama should be impeached for his abuses of power and that impeachment should serve as an example for all future Presidents that they're not going to run around the world in their tangled web of bureaucratic deceit and bomb whoever they want from whoever's White House we're putting up with at the time.

I think the following video highlights some of the major differences that have been highlighted in the discussion so far. Words that are clearly defined, such as "war", are callously misused in our language. People start to believe that welfare is warfare. Why don't we question what the laws say, what our government is doing, and what the words our bureaucrats speak even mean?

Bottom line to me is, the taxpayers are under no duty or obligation to the general welfare of the rest of the world, especially in places like Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Syria where they don't like us! This points to one of the big reasons why Rand Paul in 2016 is important: Realizing the extents of our sovereignty, cutting the extraconstitutional umbilical cords, and winding up with a government we can actually afford.