[Freedom_no_exceptions]

But even then, people like Thomas Jefferson who I don't think was a globalist deployed troops to far off lands that he was convinced "threatened us" and our trade.

Thomas Jefferson deployed troops to far-off lands to fight Islamic pirates who attacked American trading vessels and kidnapped and enslaved the Americans on board. He didn't invade Morocco, Algeria, etc., to attempt to "bring democracy" to them (he'd actually cringe at that term) as a response to a sincle act of terrorism followed by Islamist finger-waving. It's not just the sophistication of weaponry that was different in those times.

[rhombus]

Thomas Jefferson deployed troops to far-off lands to fight Islamic pirates who attacked American trading vessels and kidnapped and enslaved the Americans on board. He didn't invade Morocco, Algeria, etc., to attempt to "bring democracy" to them (he'd actually cringe at that term) as a response to a sincle act of terrorism followed by Islamist finger-waving. It's not just the sophistication of weaponry that was different in those times.

I agree that Jefferson did not want to "bring democracy" to the Islamic pirates. However, there were indeed some land invasions and of course your reference to a single act of terrorism is short sighted as there have been many, many acts of terrorism. Surely you've seen the lists posted on FR. Jefferson also didn't waste time trying to show there was no connection between this pirate and that pirate.

[rmlew]

Jefferson wanted to go to war on the side of Revolutionary France in the 1790's.
He held parties with cakes adrned with guillotines.

He almost destroyed the American economy by trying to cut off all trade. He was an idiot limited only by our lack of power.

[SJackson]

Thomas Jefferson deployed troops to far-off lands to fight Islamic pirates who attacked American trading vessels and kidnapped and enslaved the Americans on board. He didn't invade Morocco, Algeria, etc., to attempt to "bring democracy" to them (he'd actually cringe at that term) as a response to a sincle act of terrorism followed by Islamist finger-waving. It's not just the sophistication of weaponry that was different in those times.

Not exactly "bring democracy", but we did unsuccessfully attempt to overthrow the Bey of Algiers and replace his government by one led by his estranged brother. That was the shores of Tripoli thing.

Do I assume from your statement that Paul was in favor of invading Iraq, but was opposed to creation of a stable government. I admit a quick exit leaving the country in the hands of a strongman of our choice was a option.