| | "it follows we should be extraordinarily skeptical about getting involved in any conflict that takes place outside U.S. soil, and in particular if we haven't actually been attacked first in an incident involving the deaths of thousands of U.S. citizens." Jim H.
Yet you already dismissed Pearl Harbor as justifying entering WWII. Also, we've already had 9/11 with "the deaths of thousands of U.S. citizens" on U.S. soil. Do you think the military effort in Afghanistan was or is justified then?
Further, what do you propose the U.S. government do, if anything, to protect global trade routes? Even Jefferson was willing to go after the pirates, not merely have ships patrol our shores.
"...given the long and sordid history of U.S. involvement in wars in which we could have stayed neutral without anything particularly bad happening to our citizens, and in which we were oftentimes, in retrospect, the aggressor..."
That is most definitely not a given. That's a historical thesis that I would very much like to see you expand and defend, if you can.
I agree that war should not be undertaken lightly. It's expensive, disruptive, and yes can all too readily lead to an unwarranted expansion of the powers of an already too intrusive Federal government. But I try to keep my sense of perspective and chastise them for what they do wrong, while still recognizing that they have a legitimate role to play in protecting the citizens rights. And, when they act in that role I offer support, even when they do it less than perfectly.
(Edited by Jeff Perren on 1/30, 5:31pm)
|
|
