I still think you're assuming that people in general will all decide to do what's right and good. Of their own volition, no prompting.I think that 3 or 4 people out of 100 may do this.And the rest will fall into selfish tangents.
Is this the period where the Marines earned the moniker "leathernecks", because they actually wore leather collars to protect against the prevalence of swords in the muslim offensives ? I always liked that little historical note.But I still have to reel in disbelief at your questions on our involvements. In Korea we actually helped to stop the Chinese (communist) stealth sacking of Asia, and had great sucess militarily. We pursued the same goal in Vietnam, and would have had the same success, if not for the new wave of America's internal traitors. In the Korean War era, it was still fashionable to support your country and it's efforts to help others, or fight various despotic killers. Vietnam, nah......the mentally ill, self absorbed, childish wave of liberalism had gained it's footing.
Iraq and Afghanistan are parallel to Korea and Vietnam, in that they were pursued in order to halt the spread of Islamic terrorism / jihad. It's not as though we don't see it growing and moving around the globe.
Should we just let the Israel-Arab-Muslim situation blow up however it will ? You know that the only eventual outcome, if we withdraw and stand aside indifferently, is a nuclear exchange and last-man standing outcome. Is this better than our involvement ?
Case in point. Jefferson sent the Marines to take care of the Barbary Pirates, conditionally on the approval of the Congress. Once the problem was solved, the Navy and Marines came home.What was our interest in Europe during WWI? What was Our interest in Korea? Vietnam? Kuwait? Iraq? What is our continued interest in a 11 year old war in Afghanistan?I would suggest those troops could very easily be protecting our interest on the Southern Border.
"charged with protecting American interests here and abroad"
Sorry, but Korea was a civil war designed, rightly or wrongly, to re-unite a people separated by edict of the UN. It is a peninsula, basically the armpit of Asia. We were already in Japan, as an occupying force after WWII. The silly fokkers surely wasn't coming across the Sea of Japan in sampans. I have always believed, Uncle Joe snookered Harry S into getting involved and it cost us a hell of a lot of casualties and resources to fight basically a draw. There wasn't one damned thing I saw there worth one American life. Harry s Truman screwed the pooch and we are still in that stinking hell hole. One of Ike's best moves was getting out of that war, though we lost a lot of peopleVietnam was another attempt at reunification of a people that was split by edict of treaty and the UN, useless as teats on a boar. We attempted to bail France's sorry asses out after they got smacked at Dien Bien Phu. 58000+ names on a wall because we chose to fight for a corrupt inconsequential parade of assholes. Hell, at one time, we could have walked in with no trouble. Ho Chi Minh had asked the US for help, we turned him down, but the Commies didn't.Again, one of the few good things Tricky Dicky accomplished though it took too damned long to get out of that shit. Guess what- we got out, S Vietnam fell, the world is not any worse off, and we now trade with the little boogers. Kind of makes the sacrifice paid by those guys and gals whose names are on that wall seem somewhat wasteful, but fokk, it was just Americans and the price we paid, right. We saved the world.Kuwait was a simple effort to stop Hussein from continuing a habit of sacking / warring with his neighbors. Not hard to divine the meaning, value, or philosophy of that.Sure, of course, by golly, they are parallel. Iraq was stable, Saddam was a bad sumbich but at one time he was our sumbich, until he pissed us off. As Jake said in Lonesome Dove, if you can't get hung by your friends, who cabn you get hung by or something to that effect. So, we hung Saddamy. Big Whoop. Sing that to 'Waltzing Matilda'. It is really catchy.Afghanistan has, in the course of history, smashed many an empire. We've been there 11 years at a waste of men, materiel', and money, and basically, if we are to believe the MSM, Osama was taken out by a small, very mobile, dedicated strike team. Of course they are all dead now and dead men tell no tales. The point is all this 11 year bull shit seems to have accomplished little if anything except to piss a lot of folks off............................................................The entire Middle East can be turned into a glass parking lot and the world may just be a better place.If MADD worked for 40 years to keep the Russkis and us from bombing each other into the dark ages, there is no reason for it not to work awhile longer while the Israelis and Muslims off each other. Tell me it makes sense to give aid to both sides. A lot depends on how many young American lives YOU think is worth spending in the support of Israel. We can see the results of the last two bull shit wars over there on our young men and women. Of course it is voluntary, so it is what they choose. Right?
We didn't go to war anywhere to reunify anybody. We went to Korea and Vietnam to stop communist invasions, both sponsored in varying degrees by China.If you don't want to care about a major exchange of nuclear weapons in the middle east, yet another genocide against the Jews, and the destruction of the lone democracy in the region, that's your call.Hussein was our ally, then 30 years later he wasn't. Nothing new in geopolitics. Poor excuse for doing nothing, generally used by liberals.There is no MADD in the middle east. The place is crawling with self-proclaimed Saladins and 12th Imams, for whom tens of millions of dead are nothing in order to make the prophecy and caliphate happen. As usual, the Israelis have refrained from using their weapons, even when bum rushed by several countries and being completely justified.You seem to specialize a lot in "killing our boys for the rich" and suggesting that any use of the military is nothing but murdering our kids. Another decidedly liberal ploy.I do agree with you on one lone point. Yes, we are supposed to have transitioned from mass to special ops quite a while ago, and the current models of the OBL mission, and drone strikes, should be the rule.
Emotionalism or constitutionalism?
What is that supposed to mean?I say Constitutional, but your response seems to be emotional.
Never managed to read that in the Constitution. Must have overlooked it.
The Preamble to the Constitution lists six purposes for which the new government of the United States of America was established. These purposes, in general, are to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.
That's because it's in the Preamble.You know, the Document that Madison wrote explaining what the Constitution actually meant.And don't tell me you think it wasn't necessary after the fact, we just kicked England back to Europe.Do you really think had we disbanded our Navy/Military, that they would have left us alone?Point is, it's an evil world beyond our borders, keeping a Military at the Homeland is simply the stupidest thing I've ever heard.On a small anecdotal scale, it's like driving through a bad neighborhood with a pickup full of the latest plasma screens.You're just asking for trouble, which is why we have a Navy and Army stationed around the globe, to keep the hood honest and from ripping us off and holding our people hostage.
Common Defense, eh? How about common defense of the States which were the entities that ratified the Constitution?Better yet- How about a constitutional amendment allowing us to get into bed with every Tom, Dick, Juan, and Mohammed? Then everyone is happy.
It's Govt, would you have expected anything less?Though a Navy was to be maintained, the question of Army got mangled, and I'm certain it came about through precedent.But the point is, the Founders saw to it that our interests abroad were to be protected, but we know how that got interpreted.
No entangling alliances was the by word of the leaders of the country.BTW, yes, we are supposed to maintain a Navy. The fighting force of the Navy has always been the Marines, so by extension, they are constitutional and were accepted. A standing army was basically an unnecessary entity. The trained militia was determined to be the best means of defense of the homeland and was to hold the line until an army could be raised. I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but it seems to me even a standing army, if necessary, does not mean a standing army in Korea, Japan, Germany or the hundreds of other places we happen to be.Take Korea, for instance. Do you honestly believe if Junior Son Fool Do sent his million man army across the DMZ, and the South's million man army could not stop them, that 27000 US troops could?You spent time there- was there any thing worth one American life in the whole stinking, with crap, country? BTW, there was no treaty in effect when Truman sent the troops to Korea- he caught a lot of flak for it and Ike was elected on the promise to end the war. Ike screwed the pooch by not getting the troops out when the fighting was over, and here we are, 60 years later, still in the stinkhole.