[Austin Willard Wright]

I am not a knee jerk non-interventionist though you are apparently a knee jerk interventionist. I would better describe the policy I support as pragmatic defenseism. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, history has shown over and over again, the U.S. should avoid futile campaigns to social engineer every pest-hole on the planet, however, when attacked it should hit back and hit back hard *against those directly responsible." Hence, I supported Dubya's military action against Al Queda. Having said that, the current knee jerk policy of interventionism has failed terribly to make the U.S. more secure and has wasted rescources which could be used for national defense.

I am glad that you have apparently backed off your claim that we have stayed in the Coop....since the hard truth has been that the chickens have been roaming around pell-nell for quite some time.

[lavaroise]

Bismark was no interventionist, yet when Napoleon III threatened to take Belgium, he was against any change in jurisdiction in the European landscape, and he had a point, and France complied. Later on however Napoleon III disputed again Bismark and attacked, losing the war of 1970 that predetermined WWI. We simply cannot allow Saddam to be interventionist, let alone with weapons of mass destruction programs that have tentacular jurisdictions over neighbors and other continents. Our national defense unfortunately depends on a combination of distributed jurisdictional integrities abroad as well as a home nuclear build up and nuclear sheltering program.

This is not interventionism, this is resisting the illegal unappologetic proselytism of enemies at home and to their neighbors.