The Founding Fathers on Non-Interventionism

[fossten]

George Washington: "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

John Quincy Adams: "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America’s heart, her benedictions, and her prayers. But she does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

Washington also said: "Of all enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."

 

[shagdrum]

George Washington: "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

Washington was basically saying that we need to extend commercial relations to other nations to grow the economy, but in doing so, avoid uneccessary and entangling political alliances. This is more isolationist then it is non-interventionist (at least politically).

John Quincy Adams: "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America’s heart, her benedictions, and her prayers. But she does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

Adams is saying we are not an empire trying to expand and searching for countries to conquer, "does not go abroad searching for monsters to destroy". We only look out for our own national interest "she is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

Washington also said: "Of all enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."

This quote is mostly against government spending and how government debts and taxes reduce freedoms.

While these quotes are interesting historically, they don't carry the same weight as the Framers opinions do on domestic issues, like religon, firearms, free speech, etc. This is because those opinions tie back to the Constitution, which spells out principles and restrictions on the government in those areas. In all the binding legal documents that found this nation, foreign policy is left out. The power to conduct foreign affairs is spelled out, and the procedures as to how those affairs are to be conducted are spelled out but guiding principles and restrictions are purposely left out.

the reason for this is because national interests change, and the president needs to be able to change policies to protect those interests. While the quotes cited tell what those men defined as the national interest at that time, they are mostly irrelevant today, except as an interesting historical note into the thinking and priorities of those presidents at the time.

Our national interest is completely different then what it was when this nation was founded. When we were founded, we weren't even a major national power, now we are THE sole superpower. When this nation was founded, our economy was small, diffuse, and mostly isolated. Now our economy is what drives the world economy and we are dependant on the world economy. Just look at our oil situation. When Washington and Adams were president, isolationism was overall the best way to protect our national interests. That isn't at all the case today.

Part of our national interest now is in a stable world economy (hence the 1st Iraq war), and a stable world system without rouge states stirring things up.

Isolationism and non-interventionism has bee proven flawed for American national interests since the beginning of WW2. To go to this would mean a signifigant drop is the american standard of living and a change for the worse in the American way of life, ot to mention the world. In that since, it is like radical enviromentalism.

While we do have a role to play on the world stage, we should only put American military lives at risk when our national interest is directly threatened, IMO.

 

[fossten]

Washington was basically saying that we need to extend commercial relations to other nations to grow the economy, but in doing so, avoid uneccessary and entangling political alliances. This is more isolationist then it is non-interventionist (at least politically).

Adams is saying we are not an empire trying to expand and searching for countries to conquer, "does not go abroad searching for monsters to destroy". We only look out for our own national interest "she is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

This quote is mostly against government spending and how government debts and taxes reduce freedoms.

This is your interpretation of what you think they meant, but it is nothing more than spin. The only way to believe what you say is to refuse to take their words at face value.

While these quotes are interesting historically, they don't carry the same weight as the Framers opinions do on domestic issues, like religon, firearms, free speech, etc. This is because those opinions tie back to the Constitution, which spells out principles and restrictions on the government in those areas. In all the binding legal documents that found this nation, foreign policy is left out. The power to conduct foreign affairs is spelled out, and the procedures as to how those affairs are to be conducted are spelled out but guiding principles and restrictions are purposely left out.

Such as the power of Congress to declare war? You just made an issue of how things are spelled out in the Constitution, so you CANNOT pick and choose which parts you like and which parts you don't. Simply put, the constitution does NOT give the President or ANYONE ELSE the authority to go to war. This is reserved to the Congress alone.

the reason for this is because national interests change, and the president needs to be able to change policies to protect those interests. While the quotes cited tell what those men defined as the national interest at that time, they are mostly irrelevant today, except as an interesting historical note into the thinking and priorities of those presidents at the time.

You can change policies, but you cannot change the Constitution without an amendment. And the Constitution clearly states to go to war you must get a Declaration of War by Congress or Marquis or Letters of Reprisals.

Our national interest is completely different then what it was when this nation was founded. When we were founded, we weren't even a major national power, now we are THE sole superpower. When this nation was founded, our economy was small, diffuse, and mostly isolated. Now our economy is what drives the world economy and we are dependant on the world economy. Just look at our oil situation. When Washington and Adams were president, isolationism was overall the best way to protect our national interests. That isn't at all the case today.

You're once again confusing isolationism with non-interventionism. The two are different.

Part of our national interest now is in a stable world economy (hence the 1st Iraq war), and a stable world system without rouge states stirring things up.

Are you saying that we must resort to military force every time there is instability in the world? Get used to it then, we'll never stop being at war.

Isolationism and non-interventionism has bee proven flawed for American national interests since the beginning of WW2.

This is an absolutely false premise. I would encourage you to study up on the differences between the two policies. You just put them together as though they are synonyms, and that is where your flawed argument breaks down.

We have been in wars nearly nonstop since WWII, and it is by virtue of this interventionist policy that we have as much trouble as we have had with Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq. Look, you're contradicting yourself. Above you say that the Constitution restricts government, yet you advocate interfering in the civil wars of other countries and going to war without a specific Declaration of War by the Congress, knowing full well that other countries interfering in our own civil war in the late 1800s would have been received just as badly.

Furthermore, there is very little comparison to the first Iraq war and the second. Setting aside the unconstitutionality of either war, let's just compare the two. In the first, we went in and kicked them out of Kuwait, and then we left. Good enough as far as interfering goes. But Kuwait's an ally, so no problem there. But we didn't occupy and conquer Iraq, because it did not fit our national interest to do so. In fact, it was argued by many people that leaving Saddam in place was the right thing to do because he kept the region stable against Iran.

But then...our policy CHANGED. Saddam had to go. And now, guess what? There's instability in the region. I'm not arguing that we caused this instability, I'm saying that it was going to happen regardless of our actions. Now Turkey is making noise in the north with the Kurds, and Pakistan is a problem. Our presence there is having little effect.

The second Iraq war was about WMDs and deposing Saddam, both of which issues were resolved (in one way or another) immediately after we went in. But we stayed there and tried to force the Iraqis to form a government like ours, and we did this by the point of a gun. That is what we did wrong. This is bad policy just as interfering in Israel's skirmishes with her neighbors is bad policy. At some point you have to let somebody win the war, because they will never stop fighting until they do.

To go to this would mean a signifigant drop is the american standard of living and a change for the worse in the American way of life, ot to mention the world. In that since, it is like radical enviromentalism.

And how's our current policy working for us? Our president just presented a THREE TRILLION DOLLAR BUDGET. If that doesn't make you do a double take, you're living in denial. Who's going to pay for all this stuff? We spend a trillion dollars overseas every year maintaining this empire while at home we citizens go broke. Our national debt is NINE TRILLION. Count commercial and consumer debt and it's more like SIXTY TRILLION. Empires don't get conquered, they collapse on themselves from within, usually economically. We are going broke from this and you are saying we should continue to have more wars.

While we do have a role to play on the world stage, we should only put American military lives at risk when our national interest is directly threatened, IMO.

This is incorrect. We should only put American military lives at risk when we or one or more of our allies are directly attacked. It is not this nation's job to be the policeman of the world, and frankly, we cannot afford it anymore. We give billions in foreign aid but cannot give our citizens a decent tax cut. I'm sick of being told that I'm selfish because I care more about Americans than Iraqis or Pakistanis or Afghans. I AM an American, and I prefer that we focus on our own situations before we go telling everyone else in the world how to live, and that at the point of a gun.

 

[shagdrum]

This is your interpretation of what you think they meant, but it is nothing more than spin. The only way to believe what you say is to refuse to take their words at face value.

Fair enough. But I don't see how any of those quotes support "non-intervetionism" so much as isolationism. I did take their words at face value, show me how my interpretations are wrong.

Such as the power of Congress to declare war? You just made an issue of how things are spelled out in the Constitution, so you CANNOT pick and choose which parts you like and which parts you don't. Simply put, the constitution does NOT give the President or ANYONE ELSE the authority to go to war. This is reserved to the Congress alone.

How am I picking and choosing? The fact that congress is the only entity that has the power to declare war is consistent with my statement about how the power to conduct foreign affairs is spelled out, and the procedures as to how those affairs are to be conducted are spelled out but guiding principles and restrictions are purposely left out.

You can change policies, but you cannot change the Constitution without an amendment. And the Constitution clearly states to go to war you must get a Declaration of War by Congress or Marquis or Letters of Reprisals.

Not exactly. To officially go to war, the president must get approval from Congress. Outside of a strict declaration of war, and raising, funding and organizing a military, congress has no power when it comes to military action. The founders specifically said "declare war" not "make war" in the constitution. What happens if the US is attacked? Does the president have to call congress into session and ask for a declaration of war? Of course not. The president has the power to "repell attacks" and "defend the nation" without going to congress for approval. Defending national interests falls under defending the nation.

There is also the War Powers Resolution of 1973 which recognizes the president as having the power to commit troops for up to 90 days without Congressional approval.

You're once again confusing isolationism with non-interventionism. The two are different.

Actually, I think you may just be the one doing that. Please spell out for me how the quotes you gave are non-interventionist and NOT isolationist?

Isolationism isn't just non-interventionism, but non-interventionism does have a strain of isolationism running through it.

We probably need a specific definition of the two for this debate.

Are you saying that we must resort to military force every time there is instability in the world? Get used to it then, we'll never stop being at war.

I never said that (in fact I ended my post saying the opposite) and I don't see how that is implied in what I said, unless it is mischaracterized in an all or nothing manner. Where in my post were you getting that from?

We have been in wars nearly nonstop since WWII, and it is by virtue of this interventionist policy that we have as much trouble as we have had with Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq.

The problems in those instances wasn't because of an interventionist policy, there is much more to it then that. Bad strategy, conflicting political concerns, etc. all played into that. It can be said that an interventionist foreign policy (namely the Truman Doctrine) played a major part in getting us into those conflicts, but to say that an interventionist policy caused the problems in those conflicts is an exaguration, IMO.

Above you say that the Constitution restricts government, yet you advocate interfering in the civil wars of other countries and going to war without a specific Declaration of War by the Congress, knowing full well that other countries interfering in our own civil war in the late 1800s would have been received just as badly.

The constitution doesn't call for a declaration of war for military actions. Where are you getting that (specific passages in the constitution, please)? We have only declared war 8 times in this nations history.

Where did I call for interfering in the civil wars of other countries? each situation is unique.

Furthermore, there is very little comparison to the first Iraq war and the second.

None of those middle eastern countries would be a blip on the international radar if it wasn't for the international oil market effectively being based there (maybe India and Pakistan, because they have "the bomb"). The first Iraq war was to protect the stability of the international oil market and the world economy, anong other reasons.

The second Iraq war was about WMDs and deposing Saddam, both of which issues were resolved (in one way or another) immediately after we went in.

Why did Saddam need to be deposed? I think you and I would answer that question pretty much the same. But the further question is, how was Saddam being deposed in our national interest? To protect and promote stablity in the world.

But we stayed there and tried to force the Iraqis to form a government like ours, and we did this by the point of a gun.

I know you listen to Rush, so I will paraphrase him here. You can't "force" democracy (defined as allowing free will). It is the only natural form of government.

Our president just presented a THREE TRILLION DOLLAR BUDGET. If that doesn't make you do a double take, you're living in denial. Who's going to pay for all this stuff? We spend a trillion dollars overseas every year maintaining this empire while at home we citizens go broke. Our national debt is NINE TRILLION. Count commercial and consumer debt and it's more like SIXTY TRILLION. Empires don't get conquered, they collapse on themselves from within, usually economically. We are going broke from this and you are saying we should continue to have more wars.

Oh, the current world system with us as the sole superpower, is hardly perfect. Many flaws, not the least of which, it is VERY expensive for us.

That being said, that alone is not what is causing the debt here. Domestic spending is a HUGE part of that, too.

We should only put American military lives at risk when we or one or more of our allies are directly attacked.

From a defensive standpoint, that is foolish. Waiting to be shot before you defend yourself means you have to be shot (hurt, damaged to some degree) before you take action. If that first strike is done well, you can't respond, as you are already neutralized and thus defeated. Now, it seems you are going beyond non-interventionist to non-preemption.

It is not this nation's job to be the policeman of the world, and frankly, we cannot afford it anymore.

Unfortunately, we are (weather we like it or not) and it is expensive. We are the sole superpower in a reasonably stable world system. As such, we are the ones to protect that stability. While it is expensive, it would be more expensive to take a non-interventionist policy.

We give billions in foreign aid but cannot give our citizens a decent tax cut.

I don't think it is an either, or thing.

I'm sick of being told that I'm selfish because I care more about Americans than Iraqis or Pakistanis or Afghans.

I agree 100% with you on that one. However, world stability is directly part of our national interest, and as such we need to defend that stablity. Darfur and other third world countries like that don't affect world stability. While the problems there are tragic, it isn't in our interest to go in there. Countries that affect our national interest are the only ones we should be concerned with. Our military isn't a tool for a humanitarian agenda.

I think my biggest disagreement with you here is mainly in the area of what the constitution says or doesn't say reguarding foreign policy and military action. It is mainly constitution and constitutional interpretation based.

 

[fossten]

Fair enough. But I don't see how any of those quotes support "non-intervetionism" so much as isolationism. I did take their words at face value, show me how my interpretations are wrong.

Because they advocate commerce and diplomacy, something isolationists don't.

How am I picking and choosing? The fact that congress is the only entity that has the power to declare war is consistent with my statement about how the power to conduct foreign affairs is spelled out, and the procedures as to how those affairs are to be conducted are spelled out but guiding principles and restrictions are purposely left out.

Then you must acknowledge that every major conflict we've had since WWII has been unconstitutional.

Not exactly. To officially go to war, the president must get approval from Congress. Outside of a strict declaration of war, and raising, funding and organizing a military, congress has no power when it comes to military action. The founders specifically said "declare war" not "make war" in the constitution. What happens if the US is attacked? Does the president have to call congress into session and ask for a declaration of war? Of course not. The president has the power to "repell attacks" and "defend the nation" without going to congress for approval. Defending national interests falls under defending the nation.

Ah, so you're one of those that believes in a living, breathing Constitution that allows us to bypass its intent by using semantics. You are advocating the same logic that finds the right to an abortion and separation of church and state therein as well. You are really stretching the seams of logic to justify going to war whenever it suits you. We can attack anybody as long as the President can convince the people that it is in our national interest.

Using your example of repelling attacks, when has this happened? Iraq did not attack us. Afghanistan did not attack us. What you are doing is trying to put anything you please under the guise of "protecting our national interest." What if Japan decides to start calling in some of our debts and we can't pay them? Should we go to war with Japan, since this is in our national interest?

There is also the War Powers Resolution of 1973 which recognizes the president as having the power to commit troops for up to 90 days without Congressional approval.

That law is unconstitutional. And the Iraq war has lasted longer than 90 days. Try something else.

Actually, I think you may just be the one doing that. Please spell out for me how the quotes you gave are non-interventionist and NOT isolationist?

It's not my job to teach you something about them. Go look up the definitions of the two. Or search the threads, I've already posted one on the differences.

Isolationism isn't just non-interventionism, but non-interventionism does have a strain of isolationism running through it.

You're really quibbling here. Reeeeeaally.

We probably need a specific definition of the two for this debate.

I've already posted a thread entitled with the differences between the two.

The problems in those instances wasn't because of an interventionist policy, there is much more to it then that. Bad strategy, conflicting political concerns, etc. all played into that. It can be said that an interventionist foreign policy (namely the Truman Doctrine) played a major part in getting us into those conflicts, but to say that an interventionist policy caused the problems in those conflicts is an exaguration, IMO.

It's more of an exaggeration (or an oversimplification) to say that Ron Paul is isolationist, or a wacko, or a kook. It is also an exaggeration to say that if we don't continue to force our will upon Iraq, we will lose major cities to nuclear blasts.

Truman's biggest mistake was not listening to the OSS when they told him that NK was invading SK.

The constitution doesn't call for a declaration of war for military actions. Where are you getting that (specific passages in the constitution, please)? We have only declared war 8 times in this nations history.

Once again you're trying to weasel out of the restrictions in the Constitution by resorting to semantics. I refer you again to the abortion and separation of church and state argument.

Where did I call for interfering in the civil wars of other countries? each situation is unique.

You advocate continuing to stand between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites in Iraq. If these guys want to duke it out, the best thing we can do is get out of the way and let somebody win. They're not going to start liking each other because we stay there.

None of those middle eastern countries would be a blip on the international radar if it wasn't for the international oil market effectively being based there (maybe India and Pakistan, because they have "the bomb"). The first Iraq war was to protect the stability of the international oil market and the world economy, anong other reasons.

That's a different subject, but interesting that you mention oil. If we took care of our own reluctance to drill and refine at home, (domestic issues!) we wouldn't have to bother these countries half a world away, would we? No.

Why did Saddam need to be deposed? I think you and I would answer that question pretty much the same. But the further question is, how was Saddam being deposed in our national interest? To protect and promote stablity in the world.

This is a very naive statement. I refer you to Washington's words. It is not our job to hunt down and kill monsters.

I know you listen to Rush, so I will paraphrase him here. You can't "force" democracy (defined as allowing free will). It is the only natural form of government.

And yet that's what we're doing in Iraq.

Oh, the current world system with us as the sole superpower, is hardly perfect. Many flaws, not the least of which, it is VERY expensive for us.

That being said, that alone is not what is causing the debt here. Domestic spending is a HUGE part of that, too.

Again, you're talking my language. If we focused on fixing our problems at home instead of gallivanting around the world with 700 bases and troops spread so thin we couldn't stop the Chinese if they invaded Taiwan, we'd be better off. Wars cost money, a lot of it. At some point this bubble will burst and we'll go broke fast.

From a defensive standpoint, that is foolish. Waiting to be shot before you defend yourself means you have to be shot (hurt, damaged to some degree) before you take action. If that first strike is done well, you can't respond, as you are already neutralized and thus defeated. Now, it seems you are going beyond non-interventionist to non-preemption.

I'm not against preemption, but in hindsight there was no real-time threat from Saddam. Pre-emption is only acceptable if you have certain knowledge that the enemy is about to strike you. Rumors are not good enough. Wars can start because of false information deliberately submitted in order to provoke one enemy into attacking another. This is what happened with our source.

Unfortunately, we are (weather we like it or not) and it is expensive. We are the sole superpower in a reasonably stable world system. As such, we are the ones to protect that stability. While it is expensive, it would be more expensive to take a non-interventionist policy.

I reject this notion. Interfering in the affairs of other nations is totally unnecessary and it has unintended consequences. Just imagine how we would feel if the Chinese were forcing their will on us.

I agree 100% with you on that one. However, world stability is directly part of our national interest, and as such we need to defend that stablity. Darfur and other third world countries like that don't affect world stability. While the problems there are tragic, it isn't in our interest to go in there. Countries that affect our national interest are the only ones we should be concerned with. Our military isn't a tool for a humanitarian agenda.

Ahem. Going to war and occupying countries doesn't necessarily promote stability in a region. See the current situation in Iraq. The only way we keep violence down to a dull roar is with continued overwhelming force. As soon as we pull back the surge it will intensify again. The only way is if we stay for 50 years and the current generation of Iraqis dies off. But hey, McCain says make it a hundred, so you should be happy.

I think my biggest disagreement with you here is mainly in the area of what the constitution says or doesn't say reguarding foreign policy and military action. It is mainly constitution and constitutional interpretation based.

Well, I'm focused on what the Constitution says, and you're focused on your interpretation of the Constitution. In order to gain any insight into the words of the Constitution, you can read the writings of the authors. See my original post for those thoughts. My position is backed up by those statements far more than is yours. If you'd focus on what the Constitution says instead of what you'd like it to mean you'd be more in line with my thinking. You and our government are drawing elixir from the Constitution.

 

[Calabrio]

The original policies of non-interventionism put forth by the founding fathers, while supported by principle, were really the result of us being a tiny country, with a lot of land, a huge debt, and virtually no military.

Non-interventionism was a policy of self-preservation.

 

[shagdrum]

I am gonna try to stick the the constitutional/Framers intent issue here. We are going into other areas that are distracting from the main issue here, IMO.

you must acknowledge that every major conflict we've had since WWII has been unconstitutional.

To view every conflict since WWII as "unconstitional" required subscribing to a specific interpretation of the constitution that doesn't hold with what the Framers understood the constitution to mean.

We never offically declared war against the British in the Revolutionary War (the Declaration of Independance was just that, a declaration of our soveriegnty). While the constitution wasn't written at this time, and thus not a legally binding document, the fact the we didn't declare war at this nations founding is still relevant, as it demonsrates what the Framers (who were the same people conduction this war) understood as the role of a declaration of war. Basically, a declaration of war isn't neccessary to conduct war, or other military opperations.

If you view every major conflict since WWII as "unconstitutional", then you would have to view the Revolutionary War as unconstitutional, in principle, as well. This view would obviously not be in line with what the Framers understood the constitution to mean.

Ah, so you're one of those that believes in a living, breathing Constitution that allows us to bypass its intent by using semantics. You are advocating the same logic that finds the right to an abortion and separation of church and state therein as well.

Hardly. I use the same basic approach to interpreting the constitution that Justice Antonin Scalia does; originalism-inspired textualism.

We can attack anybody as long as the President can convince the people that it is in our national interest.

The President does define our foreign policy and what is in our national interest. As a sovereign nation, we have a right to protect that interest however we feel in necessary.

Iraq did not attack us. Afghanistan did not attack us. What you are doing is trying to put anything you please under the guise of "protecting our national interest."

No, President Bush did that. The american people and congress agreed with him too.

That law [the War Powers Resolution of 1973] is unconstitutional. And the Iraq war has lasted longer than 90 days.

I would agree that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional for the same reason that FISA is unconstitutional. The power to set and conduct foreign policy constitutionally lies with the president. The legislature doesn't have the authority to change the president constitutional powers. To do that takes an Amendement to the constitution which the WPR and FISA are not.

The WPR of '73 is still relevant due to the politics surrounding it and the choice of a resolution. The War Powers Resolution was drafted and passed as a reaction to the presidents authority when using the military to make and conduct war, specifically in Vietnam. They felt he had too much power, and tried to curb it. If Vietnam was an "unconstitutional war", as you say, they could have simply gone to the Supreme Court. No Resolution or other act of congress would have been necessary.

You're really quibbling here. Reeeeeaally.

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaally?

Truman's biggest mistake was not listening to the OSS when they told him that NK was invading SK.

...OSS?

That's a different subject, but interesting that you mention oil. If we took care of our own reluctance to drill and refine at home, (domestic issues!) we wouldn't have to bother these countries half a world away, would we? No.

Very true.

I'm not against preemption, but in hindsight there was no real-time threat from Saddam. Pre-emption is only acceptable if you have certain knowledge that the enemy is about to strike you. Rumors are not good enough. Wars can start because of false information deliberately submitted in order to provoke one enemy into attacking another. This is what happened with our source.

Yes, but this is somewhat of a "monday morning quartbacking" type thing here. You can only go on the info you have. If you are gonna err, err on the side of caution, which in this case ment deposing Hussein. Our info was also much more then rumors. Hussein wanted everyone to think he had WMD's, and put out info to support that.

Well, I'm focused on what the Constitution says, and you're focused on your interpretation of the Constitution.

I would say the reverse is true here. I have given you two examples to support that view.

In order to gain any insight into the words of the Constitution, you can read the writings of the authors.

I actually took a class two semesters ago where we went through all the federalist papers as well as relevant opposition editorial from the same time. Basically, the class focused on the creation of the Constitution, the thinking behind it, and the various thoughts on the issues going into it. I would like to think I am well versed on this matter.

See my original post for those thoughts. My position is backed up by those statements far more than is yours.

Those statements are simple an expression of those presidents policy in reguards to foreign matters. They are consistent with my claim that the president sets and changes foreign policy.

If you'd focus on what the Constitution says instead of what you'd like it to mean you'd be more in line with my thinking. You and our government are drawing elixir from the Constitution.

You worked in the word "elixir" there....nice.

Please, show me where those Washington and Adams quotes tie back to the Constitution. I don't see it.
I can't find anywhere that the constitution says what our policy in foreign matters should be. All I see is procedural aspects spelled out in the constitution, not policy.

I also see no where that it is required that a declaration of war must be made to conduct war. Where are you getting that? Where does it spell that out in the constituton?

It seems that we have competing interpretations of the constitution in regards to use of the military and war here.

 

[fossten]

...OSS?

You need to go read some history on the CIA.

Everything else I really don't have time to continue nitpicking with you about. The bottom line is that the founding fathers advocated not interfering in other countries' affairs, and this was consistent with the Constitution. We just disagree on this. But you cannot deny that the wars we have been engaged in are getting so costly that we cannot continue this aggressive foreign policy.