Slavery was well on its way to death regardless of Lincoln's actions. You can't mouth your respect for the law when you consistently flout it, by ignoring the Constitution at your whim and jailing those who dissent with you. I didn't say that sealing our borders and spreading democracy were mutually exclusive. But I don't see the section in the Constitution where it allows us or even encourages our Republic to export democracy. This is pre-emption carried to the extreme. Defense against invasion or imminent threat can be justified. Trying to mold the world in our image is not, either financially through confiscatory taxation nor through interventionalist foreign policy (with the use of American troops not ruled out.) Hopefully, this represents nothing more than a bit of sabre rattling to put the Saudis, Syrians and Pakistanis on notice that they'd better not step too far over the line.
Apparently the plan is to replace UN hegemony with US hegemony. We can definitely encourage the seeds of freedom in other countries and consistently criticize dictatorship and repression. But if so, we'd better be prepared to do more than mouth pretty words. I suspect, though that our trade with China will proceed unimpeded, even if they invade Taiwan next week. And if Musharaff decides to eliminate a few warlords, we will still turn a blind eye as long as he keeps up the pretense of hunting down bin Laden.
Slavery was well on its way to death regardless of Lincoln's actions.
***Tell that to the guys in the south who conducted a civil war in order to maintain the institution, even going so far as to attempt to designate half the western states as slave states.
You can't mouth your respect for the law when you consistently flout it, by ignoring the Constitution at your whim and jailing those who dissent with you.
***I have no idea what you’re saying here. Please elaborate.
I didn't say that sealing our borders and spreading democracy were mutually exclusive.
***True enough, I stand corrected. You prioritized sealing the borders when you said, “Seal our own borders first if you are so concerned about security, then worry about promoting democracy abroad”. My position is that both go hand in hand, not one after the other.
But I don't see the section in the Constitution where it allows us or even encourages our Republic to export democracy.
***The entire realm of foreign policy was handed over to the President for the most part. That was because back then, you could send a nasty note to your adversary and he wouldn’t get it for 3 months, and vice versa. It was felt that the President would have minimal impact on foreign affairs and that our buffer of the Atlantic Ocean would help keep us out of trouble.
This is pre-emption carried to the extreme. Defense against invasion or imminent threat can be justified.
***At the time of GulfWarII, there was an extreme threat that Saddam was building WOMDs. Everyone was on board with that. Our sincere hope was that Saddam was a fool and just dismantled the programs, rather than shipping them lock, stock & barrel into Syria just before the start of the war. What kind of idiot dismantles his WOMD program and then doesn’t allow inspectors in for verification? He would still be in power today if he did that. So, yes, this pre-emption is a little on the extreme side if you remove the clarifying filter of WOMDs and worldwide terrorism. But it is the right kind of pre-emption. Just ask the ordinary Iraqi, Saudi, Persian, Kurd, and fill-in-the-blank citizen patriot whether he would prefer to have a democracy or oligarchy. This is the inset deep desire of the multitudes, and it also happens to make us safer as a nation. It’s the right policy.
Trying to mold the world in our image is not, either financially through confiscatory taxation nor through interventionalist foreign policy (with the use of American troops not ruled out.)
***I think this is a bit of an incomplete sentence. Please elaborate.
Hopefully, this represents nothing more than a bit of sabre rattling to put the Saudis, Syrians and Pakistanis on notice that they'd better not step too far over the line.
***It will have that effect as well. In the inaugural speech, Bush did mention that our resources are limited, so there is only so much freedom we will be able to engender.
Apparently the plan is to replace UN hegemony with US hegemony.
***UN hegemony has not worked at all. In prior incarnations, the US would install right-wing dictatorships and that didn’t work out either. This is the premium populist middle-of-the-road approach that most people will buy into.
We can definitely encourage the seeds of freedom in other countries and consistently criticize dictatorship and repression. But if so, we'd better be prepared to do more than mouth pretty words.
***I completely agree.
I suspect, though that our trade with China will proceed unimpeded, even if they invade Taiwan next week.
***Taiwan, unfortunately, seems to be a special case for this Bush version of the Monroe Doctrine. It’s probably because his dad was Ambassador to China. I think the unfolding policy is a mistake.
And if Musharaff decides to eliminate a few warlords, we will still turn a blind eye as long as he keeps up the pretense of hunting down bin Laden.
***That’s the old approach. The new approach is to support democracy. That sabre-rattling you mentioned would be applicable to Mushareff as well.