Ron Paul 2008 Presidential bid...

[bishop]

Quote by: technosoul Even so, I would prefer they blow up a free man with all my liberties still in tack, then to feel more secure under the patriot act.

yet, you're all set to vote for hillary who voted for patriot acts 1 & 2. in fact, you defended her patriot act votes in another thread. talk about being a hypocrite.

paul, on the other hand, voted against both acts.

Quote by: technosoul Liberty is not a "right"

interesting... maybe you've heard of the the declaration of independence? it says that liberty is an inalienable right of all mankind..

paul has made liberty the centerpiece of his campaign.

Quote by: technosoul I hear the spirit of America, and I hear it in the voices of the common folks, and in the winds of change.

i hear something a bit different... i hear continued intellectual laziness, ignorance, and sheepish acceptance of the status quo. but, maybe the wind is blowing in a different direction here in MA.

paul pushes for true change, i.e. change to the establishment's status quo. and what do i see from pro-establishment sheep? schoolyard taunts about how he's low in media polls, and regurgitating pundit lines about the odds of his victory (as if we were betting at a roulette table and wanted to maximize our odds rather than vote for who we actually believe in).

[Osborn F Enready]

Techno said: I would like for you to honestly take a hard look at what you just posted. As in my opinon your true colors are showing, if I can use that term.

You certainly can use that term, and I would agree. I would say point of fact however, I wear my true colors on my sleeve, as a badge of honor.

Techno said: On one hand you talk about limited government at the federal level, then on the other hand you state I have a responsibilty know my rights by knowing the laws that set strict lines about where my rights are not right.

Its about understanding where rights eminate from, and the actual role of government, which is to serve, not be served. The thing many don't seem to grasp is that if the legal lines of "shall not be infringed" are "infringed", it removes credibility of government authority, and places the onus of rectification of the role of government in the peoples hands, whether by courts, by petition and peaceful protest, or by violent revolt.

The people have a right to shape the laws, but they don't have a collective right to remove individual rights, and that is the current role government has assumed under the pretense of "democracy", which we never were, were never meant to be, and one reason the Bill of Rights exists..... to CHECK that level of infringement of the majority, into the lives of the minorities, whomever make up those sides.

Techno said: Forcing me to be responsible to those laws and consitutional directives, instead of being responisable only to my own standards as I see fit.

No.... There is no force. If you live under observance of your rights, and the rights of others, there is no legal way for force to be used against you, and if it is, you have the legal backing to defend yourself, both physically and in the court before a jury of your peers.

It is the collective that seeks to limit liberty, aka, individual rights, that are the wielders of unjust force, in the name of democracy, and that my friend, is unconstitutional.

Techno said: I do not want to be held repsonisble by all your by-the-book dictators of what the laws of the forefathers and what they intended for me.

You have no obligation to be, should you so choose. With individual rights, you have the right to do as you wish, until you infringe upon the rights of another. It is your obligation as a responsible individual however, to take responsibility for your actions, either with force or by accepting the force you drawn down upon yourself by not respecting the rights of others.

If you disagree with ANYTHING, you have the right to protest, not comply and fight back, but by the same token, you must also bear the burden of justice in the eyes of your peers for committing yourself to those actions, and actually performing them.

TEchno said: I want to expand my liberties and I want people to leave me be, and I do not want people call the cops on me if they do not like what I am doing on my property - tell them all to go snoop someplace else.

That is your right, until your actions on your property affect the rights of others, off your property.

TEchno said: When I am driving in my car I do not want cops pulling me over or setting up roadblocks just to check people out, just so they can "go fishing" in the hopes of arresting someone with an open beer can on the floor in the back seat, or whatever. Don't waste my time pulling me over to ask "where are you going, where have you been, what are you doing driving around here?" If I break a traffic law, fine, give me a ticket and I will see you in court, but otherwise leave me the hell alone.

Fair enough. I have never argued against that.

Techno said: You cannot have it both ways. You cannot preach limited government and also demand that I be more responsible to obey the laws of that government.

I don't place all laws at the same level, nor does anyone, from judge to jury. There is a difference between violating rights, and violating litter laws, as well as there is a difference among felonies.

Techno said: As that is enforced conformity and not freedom, not liberty.

The only thing that should be enforced is the protection of individual rights, and the essential corollaries, to enforce those rights, at the federal level. Local government, or state government have some ability to pass laws, surely, but they are limited and cannot infringe the individual rights or liberty, without just cause.

The only enforced conformity is the agreement to limit force from public interaction, and in place of that, the public trust of government to enforce those laws through the system as designed.

Techno said: This like saying "God will save you and set you free, as long as you obey our Islamic codes of morality".

It is nothing like that, and I can't imagine how you could make such a comparison, logically.

Techno said: Oh say, can you not see - that?

Not at all, and I don't think many can, except the extreme anarchists.

[Technosoul]

[QUOTE=bishop;430779]yet, you're all set to vote for hillary who voted for patriot acts 1 & 2. in fact, you defended her patriot act votes in another thread. talk about being a hypocrite.

paul, on the other hand, voted against both acts.



interesting... maybe you've heard of the the declaration of independence? it says that liberty is an inalienable right of all mankind..

paul has made liberty the centerpiece of his campaign.

**********************************************************************************

I stand by my speech in it's totality and trying to defend parts taken our of the context of that toality is not how I debate.

Voting records aside. The Patriot Act is now "there" and is the reality we find our self in. That being the case I would trust Hillary with it over any of the leading Republican canidate, based on the track record of Republicans in general. Her plan is to insure that the consitutional liberties of the average citizens are not abused and I not trust the Republican party and their Nixon philosophy in the background, to be as trustworthy. Like my representive from California - Barbara Boxer - I did not favor many aspects of that Act when it was put up for votes. I only agree that all the departments that collect data should share that information, between the CIA, the FBI, and other departments, down to the local police departments. And all that data should be sent to one location to be studied and so that a President can have all the information possible that might flag some kind of terrorist plot.

Here is what I do not like about the Act. They included the term "domestic terrorism" without giving a good difinition about what that title means. Now if someone is buying a lot of explosive materials to blow up some federal building that that would be a "flag" worth an investigation. If someone is going to protest some oil company from drilling in Alaska that should not be a "flag" worth investigating by the Homeland Security Department. I think a private citizen, even if he is an Arab with relatives in Iran, should not be arrested and held for questioning without a lawyer or contacts with his family, and charges must be made agenst that person within a reasonable amount of time.
I also do not like this " the funding for the program would be based on the number of arrests being made, to prove it is justified". When the plan was put up for votes in the Senate they could not just pick out what parts they would want and what parts they did not want... they had to vote on the whole package. The good parts and the questionable parts.

My main objection to the Patriot Act is that it got President Bush "off the hook" for his unjustified war on Iraq. The Patroit Act is basically a statement that our intelligence collecting system was not up to snuff and that is why Bush was acting on "miss-information" and why Bush did not know that people linked to Bin Laden (learnig to fly airliners here in the USA) was known about by Bush before the 9-11 attacks. It let him off the hook and justified his "not knowing the truth". And frankly, it let those who voted to authorize the war off the hook. ( and I am being fair in saying that ).

Concerning this one topic as isolated from all others, I would favor the votes from (R) Ron Paul and (D) Barbara Boxer. And I think it is time for a review of the issue to reform the Act and for a new vote on a new terminology for that "project", with new guidelines.

I do not think that make me a hypocrit for supporting Hillary Clinton because that is one part of many other things that must be concidered in picking a President. Based on the larger platform in total, I am of the opinion that she has more to offer with her innovative ideas then what Ron Paul is putting on the table. The things I agree with in her total platform out weighs the things I object to in that platform (agenda).

Perhaps my California prepresentive Boxer can have an influence relative to the points I wish to see amended.

PS - use your "sheepe" name tags on someone else.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Milton Bradley How can I agree to debate things with somebody with whom I cannot agree on the simple underlying reality?

Oh come now, Milt. I'm sure that we agree on lots of things. You just aren't looking for them. I suspect that you read something that I've written and you get so pissed off that you cannot consider my content. Seems to me those on the Left spend a lot of their time being pissed off, to the exclusion of applying logic to their debate.

What you may not understand is that I'm an American too, and I'm educated too, and I'm experienced too, and while you may disagree with me, my opinions are valid too.

You, I suppose hate Bush and want us to surrender in Iraq. I strongly disagree with those two viewpoints. Those we can debate, can't we.

[Technosoul]

None the less I can understand Hillary's passion to prevent terrorism from happening here in the USA.

It is not time to let down our guard, and she is not going to be "all liberal like" when it comes to capturing terrorists who might be here plotting something.

[bishop]

definitely not.. she'll support wars that have nothing to do with fighting terrorists in the first place - like adventures in iraq, and probably iran.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Deadeye Oh come now, Milt. I'm sure that we agree on lots of things. You just aren't looking for them. I suspect that you read something that I've written and you get so pissed off that you cannot consider my content. Seems to me those on the Left spend a lot of their time being pissed off, to the exclusion of applying logic to their debate.

OK, I stand corrected, the real reason I can't debate with you is all of the suppositions, and how your always putting words in other peoples mouths.


Oh, and again, you just "supposing that I'm on the Left. ( see "supposition" above )

Quote by: Deadeye What you may not understand is that I'm an American too, and I'm educated too, and I'm experienced too, and while you may disagree with me, my opinions are valid too.

Well see, then you should have a distinct advantage because I'm neither experienced, or educated, and according to you, I'm not worthy of the title American either.

Quote by: Deadeye You, I suppose hate Bush and want us to surrender in Iraq. I strongly disagree with those two viewpoints. Those we can debate, can't we.

It's been clear since day one that you disagree on those points because that's all your ever willing to talk about. Meanwhile, the rest of us are still asking for your "justification" to meddle in other the affairs others outside your governments jurisdiction.


Thus far the answers provided have not convinced the jury of anything except that you guys feel you have divine providence of God himself on your side.


Sure, the people say, go after Osamma, but what does you're President do?

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Technosoul None the less I can understand Hillary's passion to prevent terrorism from happening here in the USA. It is not time to let down our guard, and she is not going to be "all liberal like" when it comes to capturing terrorists who might be here plotting something.

True. I just wonder how she's going to molify the MoveOn wing of her party which is huge, so that she can be nominated and still believe that she would lead us in a fight against terrorism.

MoveOn and those like them are not going to support Hillary unless she promises to cut and run...least that's what I think.

Hillary is, however; capable of changing her opinion with a switch in the polls. She is a Clinton you know.

I think that for Americans to vote for a Democrat they've got to believe that the Democratic leadership is able and willing to provide us with security. I think that most Americans believe that the Democrats are wishy washy w/t our security.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Autolykos Had letters of marque and reprisal not been banned, would Dr. Paul's proposition still be laughable, in your opinion? - Rob

Keyes is a wonderful guy, and Ron Paul might be as well. But no mater how much you guys want either of them to be nominated it's probably going to be Rudy. Republicans like him. And while you probably don't believe it, abortion isn't all that important to most Repubs. And even if Rudy is nominated most Repubs will support him, no matter what he says about abortion. What are they going to do? Vote for a Democrat? Or maybe a Libertarian? Will they stay home? Not when our National security is as risk.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: bishop definitely not.. she'll support wars that have nothing to do with fighting terrorists in the first place - like adventures in iraq, and probably iran.

HillaryClinton.com - Issues - Ending the War in Iraq

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Deadeye True. I just wonder how she's going to molify the MoveOn wing of her party which is huge, so that she can be nominated and still believe that she would lead us in a fight against terrorism. MoveOn and those like them are not going to support Hillary unless she promises to cut and run...least that's what I think. Hillary is, however; capable of changing her opinion with a switch in the polls. She is a Clinton you know. I think that for Americans to vote for a Democrat they've got to believe that the Democratic leadership is able and willing to provide us with security. I think that most Americans believe that the Democrats are wishy washy w/t our security.

MoveOn is more likely to support someone on the democratic ticket, but I am not sure who, as I have not looked over their 'demands' or objectives. Perhaps Obama. Hillary did not bow to that group's protesting in the past and doubt if she will try to make them more "moderate". The group might get behind her health plan but still object to her "hawkish" side. Hillary is still in favor of preventing terrorism here, and would continue efforts in Afganistan. She would still pressure Iran to conform to U.N. resolutions about not allowing nuclear technology to spread, especially further in the middle eastern countries, as most people believe the area is unstable.

It is standard attack mode during elections for Republicans to spread the idea that Democrats would be wishy washy about defending our country, most voters know that such gossip is mere poltical game playing and would pay little attention to such remarks.

She would not change her mind about important issues because some poll reported disfavor for them. Polls are not that trustworthy. But she does listen to the people like any representive should do, and would act acccordingly.

military General in support of H. Clinton link

HillaryClinton.com - View Post

[Chancellor]

Quote by: The Decider An interesting quote by J.Q. Adams you have there Chancellor. Apparently you aren't familiar with one of Adams's greatest diplomatic achievements--the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. As Monroe's Secretary of State, Adams drafted a foreign policy statement for the president which essentially warned European powers from further colonizating Latin America, and any attempts to do so would be seen by the United States "as dangerous to our peace and safety." Adams laid the groundwork for US interventions in Latin American politics to protect "national security."

Actually, I'm well aware of Adams' role in crafting the Monroe Doctrine and I agree with it. We had a policy of staying out of the internal affairs of other nations and we wanted Europe to stay out of the Western Hemisphere. Now, whether this was the "groundwork" for American intervention south of the border is debateable. I seriously doubt it was the intent of Adams or Monroe to interfere in the internal affairs of Latin American nations.

THE MONROE DOCTRINE (1823) When J.Q. became president, he favored military action in places as far away as the Mediterranean Sea. Following Thomas Jefferson's example, J.Q. declared his intentions to attack Mediterranean pirates from the infamous north African Barbary Coast. The constant maintenance of a small squadron in the Mediterranean is a necessary substitute for the humiliating alternative of paying tribute for the security of our commerce in that sea, and for a precarious peace, at the mercy of every caprice of four Barbary States, by whom it was liable to be violated. An additional motive for keeping a respectable force stationed there at this time is found in the maritime war raging between the Greeks and the Turks, and in which the neutral navigation of this Union is always in danger of outrage and depredation. A few instances have occurred of such depredations upon our merchant vessels by privateers or pirates wearing the Grecian flag, but without real authority from the Greek or any other Government. The heroic struggles of the Greeks themselves, in which our warmest sympathies as free men and Christians have been engaged, have continued to be maintained with vicissitudes of success adverse and favorable. State of the Union Address: John Quincy Adams (December 6, 1825) — Infoplease.com

Yes, he favored keeping a small force in the Mediterranean because our shipping was threatened - we were being interfered with. You are stupidly suggesting that what I'm saying is that we should never defend ourselves.

You see, even J.Q. Adams saw the need for military protection of American assets overseas. He didn't want a treaty to "pay tribute" for protection, but he certainly wasn't shy about using American tax payer funds to escort US merchant vessels. As trade increased in the 19th century, so did our military might and "tribute" payments in places like China beyond the reach of Uncle Sam's gunboats. Eventually we had to attack China too. All part of US economic progress, and condoned during earliest days of our nation by constitutional signors and authors, including your hero, J. Q. Adams.

Yes, of AMERICAN assets, not of foreign countries. I agree with his refusing to submit to extortion (what the pirates were doing was extortion). The Europeans, as is so typical of them, gave in to the pirates' demands; but we, the young upstart nation across the Atlantic from those lily-livered snobs, weren't going to allow ourselves to be bullied. You can be a victim or a victor: Europe chose to be the victim and we chose to be the victor.

It's really stupid of you to take what I said about not interfering in the internal affairs of other nations and try to argue against it by citing our defending our own ships and our own citizens.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Technosoul It is standard attack mode during elections for Republicans to spread the idea that Democrats would be wishy washy about defending our country, most voters know that such gossip is mere poltical game playing and would pay little attention to such remarks.

When Mr. Hillary was president he set his oppinion so that it fit the polls. Bush doesn't even read them. He says they are "old news".
I believe that Hillary somehow thinks that her husband was a good president and therefore it's likely that she'll set her decisions with respect to polls as well. It's logical to assume that she learned the tactic from her husband.....I guess they're married.......

As for Repubs spreading the idea that Demos are "wishy washy" on national defense. It doesn't take an attack add for we Repubs to believe this. After all almost all of the Democrats that I hear pound away that the war is the wrong war, and that we should "redeploy", which means "pull out".

Furthermore if a candidate supports the idea that we should pull out aren't they also giving support to the idea of a Terrorists' victory? That's the way the active military and Repubs read it. After all look at the Demos' history: Kennedy pro-quit, Obama pro-quit, Kucinich (sp?) pro-quit...really-pro quit, Kerry pro-quit, Edwards pro-quit. And during the VN War, which is still in the minds of many Repubs and military people, the Demo party lead our defeat in that war.

I agree, however; that on the surface Hillary doesn't seem to be totally defeatist in the Middle East. She's trying to play both sides of the fense. She wants to seem able to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and still pull out from Iraq....Few Repubs and military people see the logic here. And as I stated in an earlier post pulling out of Iraq and leaving our GI's to fight in Afghanistan would absolutely cause us to lose.

Therefore, I believe that the concept that the Demos are wishy washy on defense is deep seated and very well understood by most Americans. I'm even hearing Democrats stating that we need to get used to being a second rate power. Not good.


And as for General Clarke! Very few in the Military like the guy. When he was on active duty he was an avid Conservative, now that he's a civilian he's changed his spots. He's a power guy. Anyone who graduates first in his class at West Point is suspicious. He plays the game, and he plays it pretty well. If his road to power was with the Repub Party you can bet he'd be in the forefront of the Conservatives.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Chancellor Actually, I'm well aware of Adams' role in crafting the Monroe Doctrine and I agree with it. We had a policy of staying out of the internal affairs of other nations and we wanted Europe to stay out of the Western Hemisphere. Now, whether this was the "groundwork" for American intervention south of the border is debateable. I seriously doubt it was the intent of Adams or Monroe to interfere in the internal affairs of Latin American nations.

Do libertarians really support J.Q.'s theory of US national security in the Monroe Doctrine? What might J.Q. Adams say about the continued British occupation of the Falkland Islands off the coast of Argentina? Is that clear interference in the Western Hemisphere "dangerous to our peace and safety?" According to the Monroe Doctrine the British occupation of the Falkland Islands (aka the Malvinas) is a direct threat to US national security.

Then again, why should America defend any Latin American nation against anybody? Can't the Latin Americans defend themselves without Uncle Sam galloping to the rescue? Oh wait--we aren't defending poor brown skinned Latin Americans, just American national security in places like the Falkland Islands and Chile and Nicaragua.

Quote by: Chancellor Yes, he favored keeping a small force in the Mediterranean because our shipping was threatened - we were being interfered with. You are stupidly suggesting that what I'm saying is that we should never defend ourselves.

Ah, so the security and safety of US private business interests in the Mediterranean Sea, or anywhere on the world's oceans, is the same as US national security? What about US private business interests in the Pacific Ocean and Asia--are they in need of personal US naval escorts through pirate infested waters also? Interesting. This very same argument was used to justify the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands as a military refueling and maintenance stop for America's navy. I don't suppose you agree with the US seizure of independent Hawaii, so maybe you have a solution to the US navy's refueling and maintenance needs in the Pacific and Asia? Our need to protect US property overseas REQUIRED security treaties and land seizures to enable long distance naval patrols in the first place!

Quote by: Chancellor It's really stupid of you to take what I said about not interfering in the internal affairs of other nations and try to argue against it by citing our defending our own ships and our own citizens.

Call my arguments "stupid" again, I'm enjoying it.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: The Decider Do libertarians really support J.Q.'s theory of US national security in the Monroe Doctrine? What might J.Q. Adams say about the continued British occupation of the Falkland Islands off the coast of Argentina? Is that clear interference in the Western Hemisphere "dangerous to our peace and safety?" According to the Monroe Doctrine the British occupation of the Falkland Islands (aka the Malvinas) is a direct threat to US national security.

I can't speak for other Libertarians but I do - though it doesn't mean that just because I want the Eastern Hemisphere to keep its nose out of the Western Hemisphere I also want the United States to interfere in the internal affairs of other Western Hemisphere nations.

Then again, why should America defend any Latin American nation against anybody? Can't the Latin Americans defend themselves without Uncle Sam galloping to the rescue? Oh wait--we aren't defending poor brown skinned Latin Americans, just American national security in places like the Falkland Islands and Chile and Nicaragua.

I don't think we should but I do see the value in having Europe staying out of the Western Hemisphere.

Ah, so the security and safety of US private business interests in the Mediterranean Sea, or anywhere on the world's oceans, is the same as US national security? What about US private business interests in the Pacific Ocean and Asia--are they in need of personal US naval escorts through pirate infested waters also? Interesting. This very same argument was used to justify the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands as a military refueling and maintenance stop for America's navy. I don't suppose you agree with the US seizure of independent Hawaii, so maybe you have a solution to the US navy's refueling and maintenance needs in the Pacific and Asia? Our need to protect US property overseas REQUIRED security treaties and land seizures to enable long distance naval patrols in the first place!

Well, actually it wasn't so much business interests as it was American citizens. Being able to trade with other nations was important to the founding fathers and, yes, not having other nations interfere with our ability to conduct trade is part of it. And, no, I don't agree with the American seizure of the Hawaiian Islands.

Call my arguments "stupid" again, I'm enjoying it.

I'm glad I could be somewhat entertaining; though it seems clear you missed the point.

[Technosoul]

[QUOTE=bishop;430779]

I still disagree with all those assumptions generated to defuse my logical postings

[Bob652]

Quote by: bishop yet, you're all set to vote for hillary who voted for patriot acts 1 & 2. in fact, you defended her patriot act votes in another thread. talk about being a hypocrite. paul, on the other hand, voted against both acts. interesting... maybe you've heard of the the declaration of independence? it says that liberty is an inalienable right of all mankind.. paul has made liberty the centerpiece of his campaign. i hear something a bit different... i hear continued intellectual laziness, ignorance, and sheepish acceptance of the status quo. but, maybe the wind is blowing in a different direction here in MA. paul pushes for true change, i.e. change to the establishment's status quo. and what do i see from pro-establishment sheep? schoolyard taunts about how he's low in media polls, and regurgitating pundit lines about the odds of his victory (as if we were betting at a roulette table and wanted to maximize our odds rather than vote for who we actually believe in).

Bishop.
How can you say that liberty is not a right? Liberty is a natural right. The responsibility of government is not to give you rights, but to protect the rights you were born with. Even a bird know that liberty is its right. Open the cage door and see how it was programmed at birth to know that it wants to be free. No one had to teach it that. It is inherent in its very nature. It is part of the natural law that it was created with. :(

[The Decider]

Quote by: Chancellor I can't speak for other Libertarians but I do - though it doesn't mean that just because I want the Eastern Hemisphere to keep its nose out of the Western Hemisphere I also want the United States to interfere in the internal affairs of other Western Hemisphere nations.

Why should the US care what happens in Chile or Paraguay? Those nations are geographically further from Washington D.C. than London and Paris! Yet J.Q. Adams equated Chilean national security with American homeland security. Do you really think Spanish administration in Santiago would affect Boston, New York, or Atlanta in 1823? Moreover, the Monroe Doctrine didn't say anything about waiting for diplomatic invitations from Latin American nations under European colonial rule. It unilaterally declared America's "right" to warn Europeans about activities in faraway Latin America "or else." That is intervention in the affairs of other nations.

Quote by: Chancellor I don't think we should but I do see the value in having Europe staying out of the Western Hemisphere.

You don't support the forced eviction of Britain from the Malvinas Islands even though the Monroe Doctrine classifies that occupation as a direct threat to US national security? Why is J.Q. Adams wrong today but not in 1823?

Quote by: Chancellor Well, actually it wasn't so much business interests as it was American citizens. Being able to trade with other nations was important to the founding fathers and, yes, not having other nations interfere with our ability to conduct trade is part of it. And, no, I don't agree with the American seizure of the Hawaiian Islands.

Wrong. Thomas Jefferson sent the US Navy and Marines to protect private shipping interests and their crews in the Mediterranean. It was exactly about protecting American business interests. We sent our navy into Tokyo harbor in 1853 for the same reason--to protect stranded American whalers who faced certain execution in Japan. At least, that was our official excuse. We really wanted Japan to open its ports to US trade, or face the business-end of Commodore Perry's numerous deck cannons. The Japanese chose trade, and never executed another stranded American whaler. We did similar actions later on in China (ie the Boxer Rebellion). All in the name of protecting America's business interests. The Monroe Doctrine was a useful precedent, and still is.

Your disagreement with the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands begs the question I asked you. How would you resupply and maintain large American naval fleets everywhere potential pirates and rogue nations interfered with American shipping interests? If you say "use foreign ports" then you're opening up the certainty of treaty negotiations for access to those ports. You would have to support a huge American navy--bigger than anything we now have--to patrol the entire world and remain essentially self-sufficient. How would you propose to do that?

Quote by: Chancellor I'm glad I could be somewhat entertaining; though it seems clear you missed the point.

I enjoyed the insult whatever motivated it. In my view, it weakens your entire argument.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: The Decider Why should the US care what happens in Chile or Paraguay? Those nations are geographically further from Washington D.C. than London and Paris! Yet J.Q. Adams equated Chilean national security with American homeland security. Do you really think Spanish administration in Santiago would affect Boston, New York, or Atlanta in 1823? Moreover, the Monroe Doctrine didn't say anything about waiting for diplomatic invitations from Latin American nations under European colonial rule. It unilaterally declared America's "right" to warn Europeans about activities in faraway Latin America "or else." That is intervention in the affairs of other nations.

Because Europe was a threat to the United States and having Europe butting into the internal affairs of Western Hemisphere nations put Europe too close to America's borders. Adams and others supported the right of these nations to be free from Europe's clutches. The "right" to tell Europe to stay out of the Western Hemisphere had to do with something called "sphere of influence" (Monroe Doctrine, 1823). "The three main concepts of the doctrine--separate spheres of influence for the Americas and Europe, non-colonization, and non-intervention--were designed to signify a clear break between the New World and the autocratic realm of Europe. Monroe's administration forewarned the imperial European powers against interfering in the affairs of the newly independent Latin American states or potential United States territories. While Americans generally objected to European colonies in the New World, they also desired to increase United States influence and trading ties throughout the region to their south."

You don't support the forced eviction of Britain from the Malvinas Islands even though the Monroe Doctrine classifies that occupation as a direct threat to US national security? Why is J.Q. Adams wrong today but not in 1823?

What makes you think I don't support forced eviction of Britain from the Falklands - at least by Argentina? Argentina has a rightful claim to the territory and I support its right to do whatever is within its means to take it.

Wrong. Thomas Jefferson sent the US Navy and Marines to protect private shipping interests and their crews in the Mediterranean. It was exactly about protecting American business interests.

And who were the people on those ships? AMERICAN CITIZENS!

We sent our navy into Tokyo harbor in 1853 for the same reason--to protect stranded American whalers who faced certain execution in Japan.

There's nothing wrong with protecting our citizens.

At least, that was our official excuse. We really wanted Japan to open its ports to US trade, or face the business-end of Commodore Perry's numerous deck cannons. The Japanese chose trade, and never executed another stranded American whaler. We did similar actions later on in China (ie the Boxer Rebellion). All in the name of protecting America's business interests. The Monroe Doctrine was a useful precedent, and still is.

America had an important national interest in securing trade with other nations. I don't agree with Commodore Perry's actions and I don't agree with trying to force other nations to trade with us. Of course, you bringing up all of this is really irrelevant to the discussion.

Your disagreement with the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands begs the question I asked you. How would you resupply and maintain large American naval fleets everywhere potential pirates and rogue nations interfered with American shipping interests? If you say "use foreign ports" then you're opening up the certainty of treaty negotiations for access to those ports. You would have to support a huge American navy--bigger than anything we now have--to patrol the entire world and remain essentially self-sufficient. How would you propose to do that?

Treaty negotiations are not entangling alliances. What's your point?

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Chancellor There's nothing wrong with protecting our citizens.

Personally, I have to disagree with this one. Protecting American citizens within our own borders, or on the high seas (in regards to actions in the open ocean in the Med), are completely legitimate. If the whalers cited were taken from the "high seas", and not from the legitimate territorial waters claimed by another sovereign country, perhaps. But, if those whalers were in territorial waters, or in ports within sovereign countries, they are at the mercy of the rules of law in those countries. Sure, our diplomats are fully justified in negotiating with the given countries for their release, but our military has no reason to interfere with the actions of a sovereign country within their on territory.

That's one of the key issues I have with the "American interests" argument. America has NO interests within other sovereign countries, other than discussing issues and trying to reach agreement. If talk won't take care of the issues, however, our citizens are at the mercy of the "rule of law" of those other countries.

That is the EXACT reason the constitution has a limit of 2 years for funding of the army, but no equivelent restriction on the navy. In regards to offensive actions against other sovereign countries, the navy is powerless. The navy can defend Americans on the high seas, and can defend against the invasion of America by foreigners. But, the navy can never take territory from foreign nations. The army, on the other hand, can be used for "foreign adventures", which greatly frightened the founders of this country.

The constitution has virtually no limits on a defensive naval force. However, it has very strong limits on what could be an offensive land force.

Keith