Posted on 08/01/2015 5:10:41 PM PDT by conservative98
I guess changing my argument to something you could form a logical argument to would be desirable for you, but I prefer to argue the position I actually hold and stated. I.e. U.S. foreign policy should be friendly to freedom, the more free the better, and we should involve ourselves to varying degrees when it serves American interests to do so, balancing risk vs. gain in each situation.
And believe me, I’m quite happy with how most Freeport will view the series of posts.
That makes two of us. I notice most everybody is with Trump and against your position. I guess they can see through hypocrisy
I guess the full blown nuclear wars that resulted from helping South Korea, South Vietnam, and aiding resistance to the Soviets/Russia in Afghanistan and Georgia pretty much proves your point.
Obviously any resistance to Putin is futile.
I’m sorry...did we have Barry at the helm for any of that? Did we have a gutted military run by liberals for any of that?
No.
So that is your argument now; no resitance to Russia until we have a non-Barry at the healm?
You’ll have to forgive me, I thought your argument was that we should let the Russians take Ukraine, the Baltics, Poland and whatever else they’re in the market for, lest they nuke us. You see, that’s what I thought your position was, because up until now, that has been what you’ve said.
You take some time, put together a position for exactly when we should and shouldn’t get involved, directly or indirectly, and then I’ll have a nonmoving target to address.
Hmm, I’m with trump too regarding who’s primary issue it is. However that doesn’t equate to agreeing to be Putin’s bitch.
My position is consistent. We have no business there. No trade, no treaty, nothing. It is not our issue.
For us to provoke conflict when we are weak is idiocy. Russia threatens nothing of our interest. If you have a world cop mentality, bone up on the founders intent for America RE foreign entanglements. If you want to profess n]being smarter than they are, be my guest.
I’m not smarter than the Founder’s, I’m smarter than you.
Obviously not since I’m stating their position.
The Founders didn’t have a position on what U.S. foreign policy should be in 2015.
The warning concerning foreign entanglements was directly related to the world of the late 18th century, where Europe went to war almost exclusively for territory. Note that the relevant discussions were directly relevant to the immediate and that no such long term concerns made it into the Constitution. A sign that they weren’t just brilliant, but forward thinking.
There was no such thing as “the Free World” when Washington was President. We were the only such country, thus foreign alliances made no ideological sense. Had there been other Constitutional Republics at the time, I think the discussion would have turned to mutual benefit.
I presume you believe that we should have allowed Hitler, Tojo, and Stalin free reign beyond our shores and that the Monroe doctrine was a huge mistake.
OH? Perhaps you can tell me when their words expired.
Sure, Washington’s words regarding war with England expired with the treaty of Paris.
All of their words regarding an alliance with France expired with the coming of the French Republic and the Quasi-war with France.
There was also the matter of the Barbary wars, which rather amended previous assertions that we should not involve ourselves militarily.
You see, the world situation changes. Smart men change with it, as did the Founders.
You need a remedial History lesson. Badly. Barbary pirates attacked American shipping/interests directly and Washington/founders words did not expire with anything.
It is pathetic to even suggest something that asinine on a conservative forum. Core principles never ‘expire’.
You see no U.S. interest in furthering freedom and keeping large swaths of the world and it’s people out of totalitarian control. I do.
How about you let it go at that, instead of fantasizing about how Washington’s statements concerning alliances with European monarchies, somehow bolster your position.
Because they ARE my position. Or more accurately The founders position is one I share.
Say the words. You believe we must be world cop. Stop dancing and state your belief openly. You position requires it. So fess up.
You have a reading problem, a compehension problem, or both.
Not at all. you want us in foreign entanglements in Russia we have no legitimate reason to be in. I don’t.
It’s pretty clear that I support the founders vision for American military involvement and you don’t.
It’s clear as day. What is not clear is why, holding that position, you refuse to admit you want us to act as world cop.
I’ve been totally clear about when and where I’d get involved. You have chosen to ignore that, because it makes you appear simplistic to and naive to address it.
I’ve answered every question you’ve put forth. You’ve refused to answer hardly any put to you, presumably because you can’t generate an answer that doesn’t make you look foolish.
So instead you have created a heard of strawman arguments to flail, you’ve twisted Washington’s timely warning to a new country to resist foreign entanglements into a Constitutional mandate, and you’ve repeatedly begged me to change my argument to that of being a world policeman. I presume that latter is because its the only assertion that you actually have a structured reasonable argument against.
Projection isn’t an argument or an answer. Nor is dancing round they maypole.
Calling ‘Strawman!” to avoid hard truths is liberalism. If you can show a single point I made that historically inaccurate or factually incorrect, do so. Since you hosed the Barbary issue and think Foundational principles are treaty bound, I don’t have much hope for you finding things that aren’t there either.
Hey dufus, you want some facts to chew on? Explain why Washington gave $400,000 and 1,000 weapons to the French to attempt quelling the Haitian revolt. Explain why Jefferson and Madison and other Federalists, you know Founders, wanted to side with France against England after 1789.
You are so contorted in trying to create a founding doctrine of isolationism that it’s laughable. Washington didn’t talk about avoiding foreign intanglements in a vacuum, he actually explained himself. Readva little. He reasoned that we were a weak fledgling nation that had just ended a protracted war, and we needed to keep our head low for a while. Yet, as with Haiti, Washington weighed risk vs reward. Can’t say I much agree with his Haitian decision, but that’s 20/20 historical hindsight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.