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.