Replies

The founding fathers lived in another age. An age where boundless oceans provided a natural moat. An age without intercontinental flight. An age without weapons of mass destruction. They also founded a country that was one of the weakest in the world, leaving them little choice but to avoid the world's stage.

True in every regard.

None of the conditions they founding fathers faced continue to exist.

Not true.
They faced and delt with the imperial designs of England and France, We have faced and delt with the imperial asperations of England and have not done as well. Their machinations got us into two world wars that were not in our national interst.
As with France, we have finessed Russia very nicely. Thank you GW Bush.

I agree that we are no longer a nation of little power and influence. I do not agree that we should be invegled to solve europe's problems in eastern europe, Africa, and the middle east.

We have the means with our missles, B-52s, and a blue-water navy to impose our will whenever it suits our national interests. The Marines and Army are need to defend our borders, not Kosovo, Isreal, etc.
Ground troops win, keep, and hold territory. They are not needed to punnish those who would do us ill. They are needed to maintain the sovreignty of our nation.

"They faced and delt with the imperial designs of England and France, We have faced and delt with the imperial asperations of England and have not done as well. Their machinations got us into two world wars that were not in our national interst."

You're mixing apples and oranges. We may now be facing similar problems faced by France and England but it does not follow that our Founding Fathers faced these same problems. In fact, the opposite is true since they were on the receiving end of those problems.

Do you really believe the destruction of Nazi Germany, of Imperial Japan, were not in our best interests? Do you believe it was not in our best interests to respond to unrestricted submarine warfare against our merchant vessels (WWI)?

"I agree that we are no longer a nation of little power and influence. I do not agree that we should be invegled to solve europe's problems in eastern europe, Africa, and the middle east."

Nor have I proposed we attempt to solve the worlds problems. We should become involved when the worlds problems become serious threats to us. International terrorism would seem to fit that description.

"We have the means with our missles, B-52s, and a blue-water navy to impose our will whenever it suits our national interests. The Marines and Army are need to defend our borders, not Kosovo, Isreal, etc."

Oh, yes, let us retreat behind the walls of a "Fortress America". Sooner or later the world will come knocking. (Not that I support Kosovo, a place where Bill Clinton and Madeline Albrights idealism got the best of them.)

"Ground troops win, keep, and hold territory. They are not needed to punnish those who would do us ill. They are needed to maintain the sovreignty of our nation."

Wonderful. Let us resort to a few cruise missile attacks. Ground troops are the only way to root the terrorists out of the nests. Surely, Bill Clinton's cruise missile retalitation should have proved how misguided response of the types you propose are and how fruitless are their results.

You propose nothing more than a goal line defense of our borders. I prefer to play the game on the other side of the fifty yard line. It produces so much less destruction on our home turf. If you doubt this compare photographs of Berlin, Tokyo, and Washington DC immediately following WWII.