Try reading. Hamilton speaks directly in favor of my position, you illiterate twit. (That's fair turnaround for your "hollow bluster" comment, so don't whine).
Your support of Harry Browne in blaming the victim is akin to the man who disapproves of the lady's dress after she is raped. No act of this nature is justified by anger, or is justifiably retaliatory in its totality or is directly the result of our foreign policy. Acts of this scope are within the capability of our (depraved!!!) human nature. This traitorous accusation of our policies is unpatriotic in effect, political in intent, and cowardly at heart.
No. It is the realistic observation that Clinton's policy of "wag-the-dog" bombings of Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan would infuriate people in the region. That they would have repercussions.
That is exactly the kind of "foreign policy" we should avoid.
You think that Bill Clinton's legacy of interventionist warmongering is something to preserve?? Something to emulate?? It is not. It is something to withdraw from. My disapproval of Bush, Sr's actions is only a matter of consistency; in terms of the total number of international military "police actions" and empire-building operations, Clinton was the worse offender.
These Clintonian empire-building, wag-the-dog warfighting "foreign policies" do have the consequence of making enemies we do not need.
Once we have liquidated the State and quasi-State elements responsible for this atrocity, we will have an opportunity to retrench and withdraw from the kind of mindless military adventurism which has characterized the post-Cold-War era, largely courtesy of Bill Clinton. We should do so.
Heh! Right. And he doesn't mention 170 nations either! Fortunately, context is provided by his other writings and by that of Madison as well. Sufficient attention is focused on the realistic navigation of distant waters and the immediate economic interest of western Europe.
You think that Bill Clinton's legacy of interventionist warmongering is something to preserve??
You silly mongoose! Pure bait and switch. You did not limit your criticism of American foreign policy to Clinton, or, for that matter, Bush. You mentioned our provocotive policies in Asia as an invitation to Pearl Harbor.
You should have the sense to realize that our retaliation requires a resolve and determination which is independent of political positioning for policies following. Any undermining of this resolve (and I've heard other viewpoints, ie the lack of Bush's emeliorative policies in the middle east) is inappropriate at best, treasonous and dangerous at worst.