Now if you want to debabe on the merits of whether we should follow Washington's vision when he was trying to balance between Hamilton and Jefferson fine...
But the notion that we can have a Swiss foreign policy is so naive it's beyond discussion... LOL I mean, a few of the kookier contributors to Lew's site babble about it, but lets just look at it from a very simple point of view...
We withdraw and have a Murray Rothbard foreign policy... The Arabs and Israelis exchange nuclear weapons... The world economy tanks... chaos breaks out... and Rockwell would still be trying to figure out why Friedman's Monetarist nonsense is all wrong... Raimondo well, he'd still be excusing a marxist like Lenoria Fullani...
We can't be the worlds richest economy and have a Swiss foreign policy. We also can't be the worlds policeman... So we need to pick and choose our spots...
I could give a tiddly about Rothbard and who agrees or disagrees with him. I asked you to look at #80 and I doubt that you read it and understood it.
If you knew anythng about Washington...George, that is...he would have asked you to take a step back and let your brain run faster than your mouth.
My point is, in general, that name-calling, and beating one's chest does not make for reasonable exchanges of points of view, and I'm not the only one who has noted that we are seeing too many FReepers who insert unrelated matter into, hopefully, an intelligent exchange of views.
Read #80 again, and maybe the point of this forum will take on its proper meaning.
We FReepers deserve to exchange views on the main subject, and in this thread, the main subject started out to be this: Are we really exchanging views or are we simply trying to act like armchair generals behind the anonymity of a handle?