Oh, I see that you are also part of the "blame America first" crowd. Liberating millions of people from a mass-murdering dictator is a bad thing because we are being, God forbid, intrusive. Puhleeeze.
Intervention has its consequences and we have reaped the whirlwind because of our interventions.
Yea, it's called new trading partners to do business with when we help them dump the tyrannical dictator and they discover capitalism. Which creates jobs here in the US and increases the standard of living for all.
If you want to fight unconstitutional undeclared wars, go ahead, but at least have the decency to amend the Constitution so that those actions will be allowed. Didn't Congress authorize the use of force against Iraq?
Your passion to help others is noble, but it has cost literally millions of American deaths.
Please explain how "millions" of Americans have died because of our wars. Remember, you said "literally". I can't wait to see your math.
Resistance movements find ways to get weapons and more supporters. No they don't. They are hopelessly outmatched. The French resistance had no chance against Hitler.
Something like 500,000 Iraqis are dead because of this war.
That 500,000 figure has been thoroughly discredited and debunked and is only being spouted by left-wing web sites. I challenge you to provide evidence for your claim.
Appeasement is not something I support by the way.
No, you support something worse. You support enabling megalomanical dictators to have free run of the planet. You Paulites are the dangerous people. Millions of Jews being killed? You don't care. Saddam has lots of mass graves? You don't care. You Paulites probably wouldn't even fight if Al-Qaeda came to your front door and forced your wife to permanently wear a burka.
No, I don't want to send our soldiers to foreign lands to fight for the freedom of people who are not Americans. It's unconstitutional and it has had disastrous consequences for us.
So, you want to wait until they attack us here in America? Oh wait, they just did a few years ago! In New York! Congress voted to attack, according to the constitution, remember. We first went to Afghanistan and fought them. Al-Qaeda was also in Iraq, we went to Iraq and fought them. Zarqawi was leading their troops. IN IRAQ! REmember? We killed him. We now continue to fight them in Afghanistan. You got a problem with all this sequential logic? Do tell.
Again, the Constitution does not authorize us to use our military to liberate millions of people from their dictator. Using your rules of engagement, we should invade North Korea, Cuba, a great deal of African nations, etc.
Yea, it's called new trading partners to do business with when we help them dump the tyrannical dictator and they discover capitalism. Which creates jobs here in the US and increases the standard of living for all.
A foreign policy of non-interventionism would accomplish the same thing, only without killing hundreds of thousands of people and causing other countries to look at us as a bully.
Didn't Congress authorize the use of force against Iraq?
Yes, they did, and that is quite different from declaring war. We haven't declared war on anyone since 1941, and I don't think it is a coincidence that we haven't been very successful since then when we have invaded other countries. The only way we were able to attack Iraq was to say we were enforcing UN resolutions. The UN cannot declare war, it can only declare peace. Iraq was in a state of peace for 12 years before we invaded, so I really don't know how this was even justified. Remember, it wasn’t a war in Korea. It was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq.
Please explain how "millions" of Americans have died because of our wars. Remember, you said "literally". I can't wait to see your math.
Alright not millions, it was only just over one million. So perhaps I should rephrase and say your passion is noble but it has cost just over a million American deaths.
No they don't. They are hopelessly outmatched. The French resistance had no chance against Hitler.
I'm talking about a resistance within a country against the tyrannical rule of its own government, not one country against the occupation of another (the Iraqi insurgents come to mind). Our Revolutionary war is an example of a successful resistance. Only between 3 and 5 percent of our population fought against the British.
That 500,000 figure has been thoroughly discredited and debunked and is only being spouted by left-wing web sites. I challenge you to provide evidence for your claim.
You're absolutely right, I apologize. Only about 100,000 have died since our invasion. That's much better.
No, you support something worse. You support enabling megalomanical dictators to have free run of the planet. You Paulites are the dangerous people. Millions of Jews being killed? You don't care. Saddam has lots of mass graves? You don't care. You Paulites probably wouldn't even fight if Al-Qaeda came to your front door and forced your wife to permanently wear a burka.
Having free run of the planet assumes that no other nation in the world has the capability to defend themselves, and it assumes Saddam had the drive and the means to conquer the world. Where do you get these ideas? I would fight anyone who would try to take my freedoms away.
So, you want to wait until they attack us here in America? Oh wait, they just did a few years ago! In New York! Congress voted to attack, according to the constitution, remember. We first went to Afghanistan and fought them. Al-Qaeda was also in Iraq, we went to Iraq and fought them. Zarqawi was leading their troops. IN IRAQ! REmember? We killed him. We now continue to fight them in Afghanistan. You got a problem with all this sequential logic? Do tell.
The point is not to wait to be attacked, the point is to defend against attack. We were attacked on 9/11 specifically because of our interventions abroad. Like I said before, interventions have consequences, and we reaped the whirlwind. The fact that our interventions spurred the attacks doesn't excuse the attacks though. Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before we invaded; this has been thoroughly debunked by the Pentagon itself. However, since we've been in Iraq, Al Qaeda does have a presence. And why wouldn't it? We decided to make it easier for them to attack us by coming over to their side of the world. Now they don't even have to worry about crossing our border undetected! Your logic has no credible sequence.