Saturday, May 26, 2012
Honor our troops by bringing them home!
Jacob Hornberger gets it right. Read here how the troops, who don't know the politics behind the U.S. empire, are duped and actually believe they are defending our freedom. However, no nation on earth has the power to take our freedoms (since we spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined). If no nation can take them, being out there is not "defending" or "preserving" our freedoms. Let's just follow the Constitution (remember that?), which does not authorize military bases around the world. And aren't you tired of paying for them?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I'd reread the Constitution were I you, since it does in fact authorize our government, and in particular our president, to negotiate and secure agreements with foreign nations. Some of those agreements allow military bases.
The Constitution says that the president can make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. But should they make so many treaties that allow 785 bases in 140 countries? Does that sound prudent? We must realize that the Constitution is a severely flawed document. Many bad clauses (commerce, 3/5ths, necessary and proper for a few examples)and the treaty clause may also be bad. As we all know, treaties led to alliances which led to World War I.
The Constitution is a severely flawed document, but not as it was originally drafted. If the Founders made a mistake it was in assuming that the grubby hands of the caretakers they entrusted it to would respect and defend it like they had. It has been failed and abused by all three branches of government.
Traeties and alliances did lead to World War I, but those weren't US treaties or alliances. Treaties and alliances also saved Europe in WII. By and large, treaties and alliances have served US interests well for 240 years, starting with the one with France that made this country possible.
If we hadn't gotten involved in WWI, there might not have been a WWII.
"Friendships with all, alliances with none"...We should have listened to George.
Nothing in the Constitution permits this huge leviathan state that feeds on war. Though, there are some clauses that create an umbrella when read by the people of this day, they were never meant to be used as such.
I like the Confederate Constitution. They omitted clauses that they saw as 'elastic.'
The 3/5ths clause, in the original draft, was clearly a mistake. Slavery built in to the document, yet two paragraphs above it mentions liberty and justice. Necessary and proper clause clearly a mistake: leads to more and more govt - anything can be done with that clause. Brad, "treaties and alliances have served US interests well" - but what about the interests of others that we've run roughshod over?
I like your post nice
The interests of others that we've run roughshod over is a result of poor leadership, not because of treaties and alliances. Good government is incumbent upon responsible leadership, which we've had little of since Eisenhower and Kennedy. And the Constitution is supposed to be the limit of the state's power, not the legal license used to allow any activity.
I doubt that this country can be repaired, it probably needs to be rebuilt.
Mary, if we hadn't gotten involved in WWI, Germany wouldn't have had a need for WWII - they would already have owned all of Europe.
War is seldom the answer, but if history teaches you anything, it should teach you the few times that it is.
Mary, Brad doesn't realize that no country in Europe had the manpower or the resources to control the continent. The insurgency, rebellions, sabotage, political assasinations, etc etc prevent any one country from controlling that continent. NEVER forget the result of US intervention: another war that killed 50 million and the formation of the USSR - both of which are much worse than if Germany "wins" World War I.
I did learn something from wars:
They only destroy.
The USSR wasn't created as a result of WWI, the Bolsheviks were already fighting a terrorist action across the entire country. Lenin and Stalin were active long before and completely independent of German aggression.
And Germany didn't need the manpower to militarily control the entire continent, just enough to create a secret police like they did in WWII. And even if they would fail to control the entire continent, they would still have created a massive police state that would have controlled much of the continent. And the purges of the white russians takes place regardless.
This "pick and choose" approach to history might serve your personal belief system, but as a history teacher you should know better.
Wars do destroy, but it is the job of any responsible nation to oppose the type of aggression represented by Germany prior ro WWI. Sadly, the only thing worse than a bad war might be a bad peace.
Brad the interventionist and shill for the empire doesn't like criticism of the U.S. warfare state. Secret police enough to control the continent? Please. You've got a pick and choose method also: you pick intervention and choose which country the U.S. killing machine will do in that year. Tragic.
Sure it's a pick and choose method, but it wasn't mine, it was President Wilson's. ALL of eastern Europe was controlled by secret police so it's no stretch that the west could be too. And I criticise the US plenty, but at least I do so honestly.
I never stooped to label you in my posts and won't do so now, but I will be looking for a site with a higher level of discourse.
Your grasp of both the Constitution and historical geopolitics is limited by your ideology, and that's sad. But the fact that you are in a position to instruct others, now THAT'S tragic.
Brad, peace is an ideology? And the non-aggression principle should be first and foremost, shouldn't it? You keep posting revisionist history: "ALL of Eastern Europe . . ." ALL? And how pervasive was the control? The military continues to surround China and conducts naval operations in the South China Sea. Acceptable? What will you post when the U.S. pushes them into a conflict? It was a good thing because we had a "bad peace?" Tip: Read antiwar.com every day. Those authors are the best foregin policy people on the planet.
Post a Comment