> XJH: Since when has there been a country supposedly founded on moral premises rather than thuggery? You may think our morality should be no better than that of the Roman Empire. I think it should be.
Please cite for me an example where the founding fathers pursued a war for the purposes you express. Since they supposedly founded this country on the moral premise you talk about there should be some examples you could give me. Or at least point out in their writings where they proposed such actions. One also has to respect the concept of national sovereignty and legal jurisdiction. Setting a precident for intervention is very dangerous.
>U89: I can name no war where a 3rd party joined in on one side because of altruism.
>XJH: To avoid a historical debate, I'll just respond "so what"? If you think there are never any circumstances under which we should get involved in military action outside our borders, moral or otherwise, just say so.
OK. I'm saying "So." The paramount job of the government is to secure our lives and our liberties for ourselves and our posterity. War, any war puts the nation at risk. To go to war under any but the most necessary dictates of self defense is to reckless endanger the life of the nation which is the very antithesis of the purpose of the government's mandate to protect it. Furthermore so called morality is subjective. Would you want yourself or your children to die for Bill Clinton's idea of morality for example?" History has proven how often wars are pursued for venal purposes or delusions of grandeur but are often masqueraded under the fascasde of morality. I cited the Span Am War, how about W.W.I? Wilson had to protect US bank loans to the Allied Powers and needed combat casualties to have influence at the peace table so he could "make the world safe for democracy." Do you really trust politicians, any politician, who all get to power due to duplicity, cynicism, cronyism and graft, do you really want to take their word for anything? History proves how each administration lies to us in so many ways.
You brought up Klinghoffer so I asked if my memory was correct on the facts of the case, nothing more, nothing less. You are wrong to infer that I meant he got what he deserved. But since you bring it up, in this life our actions do have consequences and mouthing off to crazed, murderous fanatics when you already have two strikes against you is not wise if one wishes to continue living. No, he didn't "deserve" to die but under the circumstances his death was not surprising.
>XJH: The article was saying to disband the standing federal military. To use a trite cliche, he put the cart before the horse. How about first pulling back, then waiting, then getting rid of the military when its apparent there is no threat?
Our debate has not stayed on the exact premise of the article and I can not debate for another so some of my remakes are my opinion and I do not try to explain or justify someone else. The question arose of our overseas actives and having a standing army for defense. I am not against having a standing army but I do question the size of it, our far flung positioning and our overseas activities. As we've discussed I claim our activities over the last 50 years and particularly the last dozen has made us some lethal enemies. You mention that there is a clash of civilizations at foot and I do not reject aspects of that. We need their oil. They need our dollars. Other than that we do not have to interact. Our culture is an affront to some over there and in places TV satellites and VCR's were outlawed as they tried to stem our influence but that is not the motivating factor for the many who hate us to the point they are willing to die for it. What put us at odds with the Iranians for example? Back in '79 they didn't jump up and down over the evils of Charlie's Angles on their TV's. No, they were sore because we put in power and propped up a Shah they considered despotic. And so it goes.
As for the standing army bit I agree with you that we should first pull back, then reorganize but given the realities of today' s mobility and such I could live with a standing professional army as long as it was much smaller in size than it currently is as its present scale is not necessary to protect our borders. With the smaller army people like Albright wouldn't be tempted to play God with it.
There isn't one. It was a different time when mass genocide wasn't quite as common an occurence. Perhaps more to the point, they didn't have the ability to do that even if they wanted to because we were so weak. In any case, I've just asked a simple question which you keep dodging: are you against any American military action outside our borders whether for moral, humanitarian, or any other reason?
One also has to respect the concept of national sovereignty and legal jurisdiction.
Since the only legitimacy a government has is when it is granted by the consent of the governed, any oppressive state has no claim to sovereignity. Or do you think there's some kind of legal and/or moral right to commit genocide against innocents? Exactly which Federalist Papers contains that nugget?
And by the way, I'm not even advocating that we do such interventions. I'm just trying to find out if you have a brightline rule that 1) we should never do it, and/or 2) we would lack a legal/moral right to do it if we did so choose.
Furthermore so called morality is subjective.
You sure you want to go there?
I'm not against having a standing army but I do question the size of it, our far flung positioning and our overseas activities.
I've got no quarrel with that. My quarrel was with the overly broad position staked out by the author.