Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/29/2002 2:23:16 PM EDT
Here is a list of quotes made by our Founders, and some other people, on interventionism that I compiled. Quotes on Interventionism: "The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. `Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign World."-George Washington, 1796 "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." - Thomas Jefferson, 1799 "I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government [to be] peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none..." - Thomas Jefferson, 1801 "It has been the true glory of the United States,” in “fulfilling their neutral obligations with the most scrupulous impartiality . . . to maintain sincere neutrality toward belligerent nations,” and “to exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities."- James Madison "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America's heart, her benedictions, and her prayers. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. . The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit" -- John Quincy Adams (1821) "Peace and abstinence from European interferences are our objects, and so will continue while the present order of things in America remain uninterrupted." -- Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1802 "Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them." -- Thomas Paine "Under the benign influence of our republican institutions, and the maintenance of peace with all nations whilst so many of them were engaged in bloody and wasteful wars, the fruits of a just policy were enjoyed in an unrivaled growth of our faculties and resources." -- James Madison, First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1809) "There never was a good war or a bad peace." -- Benjamin Franklin, (1773) "In war, the stronger overcomes the weaker. In business, the stronger imparts strength to the weaker." -- Frederic Bastiat "Older men declare war. But it is the youth who must fight and die."-- Herbert Hoover "In all history, there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. Only one who knows the disastrous effects of a long war can realize the supreme importance of rapidity in bringing it to a close. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war who can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on." -- Sun Tzu (author of The Art of War) "Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism--how passionately I hate them!" -- Albert Einstein "War is the health of the State." -- Randolph Bourne
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 2:24:24 PM EDT
"By following the policy we have adhered to since the days of Washington we have prospered beyond precedent; we have done more for the cause of liberty in the world than arms could effect; we have shown to other nations the way to greatness and happiness. "But if we should involve ourselves in the web of European politics, in a war which could effect nothing ... where, then, would be the last hope of the friends of freedom throughout the world? Far better it is ... that, adhering to our wise pacific system, and avoiding the distant wars of Europe, we should keep our own lamp burning brightly on this western shore, as a light to all nations, than to hazard its utter extinction amidst the ruins of fallen and falling republics in Europe."-- Henry Clay "If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist."-- Joseph Sobran (1995) "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."-- William Pitt (1783) "War has all the characteristics of socialism most conservatives hate: Centralized power, state planning, false rationalism, restricted liberties, foolish optimism about intended results, and blindness to unintended secondary results." -- Joseph Sobran (1991) "People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election." -- Otto von Bismarck [1819-1898]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 2:33:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 2:43:19 PM EDT
So, how exactly do we have "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none". Just exactly how does that work in this world? Take an example, any example, and please fill us in on the specifics.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 2:53:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 3:34:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raf: Lib, you discount the possibility that the FF of a small, militarily weak nation might view things differently given today's vastly different circumstances. How does the war with the Barbary pirates fundamentally differ from the current war on terrorism? Was that not "interventionism"? Given current conditions and reality, what to YOU propose we do to ensure our safety against fanatical, suicidal terrorists? Please be specific.
View Quote
The real question is: Why are fanatical suicide terrorists bent on the destruction of America? Might it possiply be because the government supports Isreal openly and maintains troops and influence all over the middle east? Mabye if we didn't keep butting into other people's conflicts, there wouldn't be fanatical suicide terrorists bent on the destruction of America?
She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. . The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit.
View Quote
Gee, don't suppose this has already happened?
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 4:13:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Shadowblade: He is merely quoting our founder's wishes not not be allied or politically aligned with other countries. It worked just fine for a long time.
View Quote
That turns out not to be the case. We were allied with France from day one---we wouldn't have won the War for Independence without them. In fact, one of the Founding Fathers, Jefferson, was very much in favor of supporting the French Revolution until the Reign of Terror began and everyone began to sour on it. True, there was a period of around 50-80 years that we weren't much involved with Europe, but that was mostly a result of the need to recover from a devastating Civil War.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 4:25:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raf: Lib, you discount the possibility that the FF of a small, militarily weak nation might view things differently given today's vastly different circumstances.
View Quote
Yes, I do discount that. Because given their beliefs and statements, which were quite profound, it would still be the same. And I don't think we should be a small, militarily weak nation. We could be quite powerful militarily, but rely heavily on the populace at large as a militia, but still have enough government forces to stop an attack.
How does the war with the Barbary pirates fundamentally differ from the current war on terrorism? Was that not "interventionism"?
View Quote
No. Given that we were attack by them, and they had a "home base", we could justly attack them, because they violated the law of nations reference in the Constitution. The current war of terrorism, while the terrorists did violate the law of nations, is unjust, because we are not just hunting down those directly involved with the attacks, with concrete evidence to show their involvement, but tracking down terrorism where ever it is, which is very open ended. If we would have gotten a Declaration of War against Afghanistan, along with concrete proof that they were harboring the terrorists and those terrorists were involved in the attacks, I would support it. The way we went about it is unjust. Bringing up Iraq, I cannot support going to war with them, because they had no involvment in the attackst, and they haven't attacked us in over a decade, notwithstanding claims of phantom weapons of mass desctruction. We can only justly attack those who were involved in the 9/11 attacks, and no more.
Given current conditions and reality, what to YOU propose we do to ensure our safety against fanatical, suicidal terrorists? Please be specific.
View Quote
I've given my suggestions on how to deal with the 9/11 terrorists and their supports, and now I'll deal with the more complex question of ensuring our safety in "today's world"(as if it is any different from any other time in history for any other country). It would be a Four part strategy: -Hunt down those who were involved and who helped with the 9/11 attacks, using my suggestions above. -Bring home any troops not needed for the above strategy. -End all foreign aid (especially as it has never helped the receiving country or their populace) -Revive the militia. This will have the following effects: -Anybody that messes with us and kill innocents will pay dearly. -It will end the reasons they hate us: because we support corrupt governments and intervene in their affairs -We will be better protected from foreign attacks. I don't have all the answers, especially about how to organize the defense at home, as I need more time to even consider such a question. Hope that helps.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 4:26:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: So, how exactly do we have "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none". Just exactly how does that work in this world? Take an example, any example, and please fill us in on the specifics.
View Quote
Switzerland is a excellent example, although lately they have been allying themselves more and more. As for how it would work, it is quite simple: Our military is used only to defend the nation's borders, and it cannot go outside them except with a Declaration of War, or if circumstances prevent that(such as an attack where the military must act immediately and Congress is not in session), and only to get those who attack us. They may not be used under the command of any foreign or international governments(UN, et al), or for any other reason than defense(such as "humanitarian", "government deposing"). The government should sign no treaties obligating us to engage in the above missions, or requiring us to defend another nation. For the commerce with all part, tariffs should be low, if not non-existent, and should ONLY be used for raising revenue for Constitutional Permissible Purposes(ie defense, Customs), and not for purposes which violate the Constitution(such as BATF funding, gun law enforcement, Foreign Aid, Education Funding, Agriculture subsidies), and the tariffs may not be used to protect a industry(such as the recent steel tariffs) and may not be used to prohibit the importation of any thing or class of things or things for a certain country only. Trade must not be regulated whatsoever(such as how imported assault weapons must have 7 US parts or what ever that dumb law says). It is actually quite easy to do and can be summed up very nicely: The government is not involved in trade and shall not intervene in other nations affairs. Hope that Helps
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 4:48:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2002 4:55:01 PM EDT by DaMan]
Originally Posted By RikWriter: That turns out not to be the case. We were allied with France from day one---we wouldn't have won the [b]War for Independence[/b] without them. In fact, one of the Founding Fathers, Jefferson, was very much in favor of supporting the French Revolution [b]until[/b] the Reign of Terror began and everyone began to sour on it.
View Quote
Ahhhh, I see, Rik! Jefferson was at fault for the excesses of the French Revolution! Is [b]that[/b] the arguement you meant to present while trying to discredit Jefferson's ideas? DaMan
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 4:54:52 PM EDT
The FF were undoubedly a brilliant collective in terms of wisdom and political acumen – but they weren't mystics! Most of the quotes you offer were made about 150yrs before the existance of the state of Israel – the current focus – for example. The FF couldn't have imagined flight, let alone the speed of current communications, WW1, nor the effects of modern mechanized production would have on future conflicts. Similarly, they could never have imagined Hiroshima. Santayana was right about looking back, but we can only do that effectively from the perspective of times we live in. I personally think that if the FF were around today they'd be smart enough to say, "Let's take another look at this."
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 5:06:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DaMan: Ahhhh, I see, Rik! Jefferson was at fault for the excesses of the French Revolution!
View Quote
Ah, I see that you still lack reading comprehension skills.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 5:11:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2002 5:14:25 PM EDT by DaMan]
Originally Posted By stcyr: The FF were undoubedly a brilliant collective in terms of wisdom and political acumen – but they weren't mystics! Most of the quotes you offer were made about 150yrs before the [b]existance of the state of Israel[/b] – the current focus – for example.
View Quote
Would the "Founding Fathers" have backed down on their IDEALS????!! [b]DOUBT IT!!![/b] DaMan
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:23:42 PM EDT
rikwriter, jefferson was extremely close to going to war with france over the luisianna purchase. i think of our founder's attitude on alliances as one of necessity. i wonder how that would work now. we would still be in the middle east. doubtfull we would touch the ground at bosnia, vietnam, korea, somalia etc... what an interesting thread. thanks lib, i can never get enough of the brilliance of those guys.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:34:08 PM EDT
I wonder....... (anti)Liberty76, are you a current member of any militia group? I ask because I believe someone is doing your thinking for you. A man (boy) is easily influenced at their younger ages....what has influenced you that caused your cuurent views? sgtar15
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 6:03:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stcyr: The FF were undoubedly a brilliant collective in terms of wisdom and political acumen – but they weren't mystics! Most of the quotes you offer were made about 150yrs before the existance of the state of Israel – the current focus – for example. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Would the "Founding Fathers" have backed down on their IDEALS????!! DOUBT IT!!! DaMan No. But being the intelligent men you and I both agree they were, they would at least reflect on their on their comments – made 150 - 200 years ago – and, I suspect, take account of the monumental differences between their world and ours!
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 7:09:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stcyr: No. But being the intelligent men you and I both agree they were, they would at least reflect on their on their comments – made 150 - 200 years ago – and, I suspect, take account of the monumental differences between their world and ours!
View Quote
stycr, you and I must agree to disagree on this one. The quotes of our founding fathers (posted by libertyof76 at the beginning of this post) are as true NOW as when they were then. Maybe more so! DaMan
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 7:32:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: We were allied with France from day one---we wouldn't have won the War for Independence without them. In fact, one of the Founding Fathers, Jefferson, was very much in favor of supporting the French Revolution until the Reign of Terror began and everyone began to sour on it.
View Quote
Rik, so when did the "Reign of Terror" begin in the French Revolution? TIA! DaMan
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 7:34:51 PM EDT
The Founders were brilliant men that understood human nature. They knew if their words and warnings were not heeded by subsequent generations that the new government they had created, at the cost of many lives, would ultimately fail. At the conclusion of the Constiutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked: "What have you wrought?", he replied "A republic, if you can keep it." IMO increasing statements equating to "the wisdom of the founders is outdated" is just more evidence the Republic is on the slippery slope and getting ready to take a swan dive.
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 8:01:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 8:03:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DaMan: Rik, so when did the "Reign of Terror" begin in the French Revolution? TIA! DaMan
View Quote
The French Revolution began in 1789. The Reign of Terror occurred between September of 1793-1794. Which leaves aside the fact you were trying to say that I implied that Jefferson was responsible for the Reign of Terror, which of course was a twisting into unrecognizable shape of what I actually said.
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 8:13:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Paul: How exactly does a citizen's militia deal with foreign army's tanks, assault helicopters, cruise missiles, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons?
View Quote
By full implementation of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 8:15:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76: It would be a Four part strategy: -Hunt down those who were involved and who helped with the 9/11 attacks, using my suggestions above. -Bring home any troops not needed for the above strategy. -End all foreign aid (especially as it has never helped the receiving country or their populace) -Revive the militia.
View Quote
You forgot step 5 - put out the sign saying "come attack us, we have no military capable of fighting you off." The [b]fact[/b] that you don't seem to understand is that in today's world a nation [b]must[/b] have a standing army to defend itself. Wars are fought differently now, in case you haven't noticed. Without a standing army (standing military in general) the Mexican air force could bomb our infrastructure into oblivion without having to worry about being shot down. After all, where would a militia member get training on how to operate a Stinger or Avenger SAM? The idea of relying solely on the militia for defense was fine when we were a frontier nation and when wars were fought solely by men with rifles and crude cannon taking pot shots at each other from 50 yards away, but technology has made those days nothing but a dim memory from the distant past.
This will have the following effects: -Anybody that messes with us and kill innocents will pay dearly.
View Quote
How? You're against having a standing army - do you think the [b]militia[/b] will hop on cruise ships or airliners and travel to Afghanistan to administer a chastisement?
-We will be better protected from foreign attacks.
View Quote
You're right - if only the people of New York City had been able to carry their militia weapons in public, why, those airliners never would have hit their targets! Heck, if the people of Boston had been able to carry THEIRS, the terrorists never would have gotten onto their planes! I submit to you the name of the first and most significant interventionist policy in American history - the Monroe Doctrine. How much more interventionist can you get than telling other nations not to intervene in territories we have no claim on, other than they're in the same hemisphere as we are?
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 8:20:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/30/2002 9:02:21 PM EDT by NH2112]
Originally Posted By DaMan: Would the "Founding Fathers" have backed down on their IDEALS????!! [b]DOUBT IT!!![/b] DaMan
View Quote
The Founding Fathers' ideals were shaped by the world in which they lived - a world in which isolationism was possible. It's not possible now, not for an industrial nation at least. (edited to add) Would the Founding Fathers want to own slaves if they could somehow be brought back to life today? Or would they "compromise" their ideals because today's world is very different from the one they lived in?
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 8:40:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio:
Originally Posted By Paul: How exactly does a citizen's militia deal with foreign army's tanks, assault helicopters, cruise missiles, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons?
View Quote
By full implementation of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.
View Quote
That makes absolutely no sense. Explain, please. Also, the 'dictator' quote you attribute to Bush, could you post a link, or did you just make it up?
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 8:45:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: The Reign of Terror occurred between September of 1793-1794. Which leaves aside the fact you were trying to say that I implied that Jefferson was responsible for the Reign of Terror, which of course was a twisting into unrecognizable shape of what I actually said.
View Quote
SO WHAT EXACTLY WERE YOU TRYING TO SAY,RIK? That a favorite relationship with Revolutionary France was WRONG? Who was responsible for that Reign of Terror? Names? Did the newly formed US government send them money? DaMan
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 8:55:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/30/2002 8:59:02 PM EDT by Imbroglio]
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."-GWB Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect. "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."- GWB Washington, DC July 26, 2001
Link Posted: 3/31/2002 4:03:21 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/31/2002 4:11:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2002 4:12:16 AM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 3/31/2002 4:37:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DaMan: SO WHAT EXACTLY WERE YOU TRYING TO SAY,RIK?
View Quote
What I was saying would be self-evident to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Someone said that the US had avoided alliances with other nations for a long time after its creation. I pointed out that we had an alliance with France from the very beginning and wouldn't have won the war with England without them, and the only reason we didn't MAINTAIN an alliance with France was because of the Reign of Terror. Somehow, you've fixated on this and can't seem to let it go.
Link Posted: 3/31/2002 6:17:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2002 6:18:51 AM EDT by LARRYG]
Imbrog, perhaps you would be happier if Gore had gotten elected? raf, the t37 flashhider on the M1 hasn't splayed after about 100 rounds. Is that soon enough to tell if it is going to splay? I took it off and tapped it against the counter and it sounded like a tuning fork. Is that what you are talking about? I just got two more and they WERE in the oily bag.
Link Posted: 3/31/2002 11:25:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2002 5:15:01 PM EDT by DaMan]
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By DaMan: SO WHAT EXACTLY WERE YOU TRYING TO SAY,RIK?
View Quote
What I was saying would be self-evident to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Someone said that the US had avoided alliances with other nations for a long time after its creation. I pointed out that we had an alliance with France from the very beginning and wouldn't have won the war with England without them, and the only reason we didn't MAINTAIN an alliance with France was because of the Reign of Terror.
View Quote
"Somehow, you've fixated on this and can't seem to let it go." - Rikwriter As Lucie would say..... "Oh Rikki!" Look at libertyof76's quotes! Which one was made before Jefferson or Washington knew of the "Reign of Terror"? The statements they made, were made from EXPERIENCE! And were as true THEN as they are NOW! DaMan
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 1:10:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sgtar15: I wonder....... (anti)Liberty76, are you a current member of any militia group? I ask because I believe someone is doing your thinking for you. A man (boy) is easily influenced at their younger ages....what has influenced you that caused your cuurent views? sgtar15
View Quote
First, how am I anti-liberty? I want to protect the liberty of both Americans AND those overseas. Interventionism is statism, and hence anti-liberty. You calling me anti-liberty is like calling a jew an anti-semitite. It makes no sense on its face or under closer scrutiny. Second, Where do I get my ideas? From the writings of the Founding Fathers. I also get help from [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com[/url]
Originally Posted By Paul: How exactly does a citizen's militia deal with foreign army's tanks, assault helicopters, cruise missiles, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons?
View Quote
By having tanks, helicopters, missiles, and the knowledge of how to deal with NBC weapons, all trained in accordance with Congress' wishes. Of course, there will be a Navy, and if a Constitutional Amendment passes an Air Force. Of course, the states can have their own Air Forces.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 1:11:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NH2112: You forgot step 5 - put out the sign saying "come attack us, we have no military capable of fighting you off." The [b]fact[/b] that you don't seem to understand is that in today's world a nation [b]must[/b] have a standing army to defend itself. Wars are fought differently now, in case you haven't noticed. Without a standing army (standing military in general) the Mexican air force could bomb our infrastructure into oblivion without having to worry about being shot down. After all, where would a militia member get training on how to operate a Stinger or Avenger SAM? The idea of relying solely on the militia for defense was fine when we were a frontier nation and when wars were fought solely by men with rifles and crude cannon taking pot shots at each other from 50 yards away, but technology has made those days nothing but a dim memory from the distant past.
View Quote
Where did I say to abolish the military? I never said that! The Founders were wary of a standing military, but not a navy. In fact, the Constitution clearly indicates that a Navy was to be kept. I would also be in favor of Amending the Constitution to allow an Air Force. Where would a militiamen get training for a SAM? Well, Congress does have the authority to set how training should be done, and the States all should have SAM's and Air Forces, all staffed by full time (select) militiamen. The Militia would mainly be used to prevent invasions and stop them if they occur.
How? You're against having a standing army - do you think the [b]militia[/b] will hop on cruise ships or airliners and travel to Afghanistan to administer a chastisement?
View Quote
No, I am WARY of a standing army. The debates in the Constitutional Convention indicate that a small standing army would be appropriate. And how would the militia get to Afghanistan(presuming we have declared war on them and the war is a just war)? By the NAVY of course! I never mentioned abolishing the Navy. The Founders clearly wanted a standing Navy to protect the shows.
You're right - if only the people of New York City had been able to carry their militia weapons in public, why, those airliners never would have hit their targets! Heck, if the people of Boston had been able to carry THEIRS, the terrorists never would have gotten onto their planes!
View Quote
Well, if the people ON THE PLANES, and the pilots were allowed to carry weapons, we wouldn't have a problem would we?
I submit to you the name of the first and most significant interventionist policy in American history - the Monroe Doctrine. How much more interventionist can you get than telling other nations not to intervene in territories we have no claim on, other than they're in the same hemisphere as we are?
View Quote
I am not up on the Monroe Doctrine at this moment, but I have read that it was not so much interventionist, but defensive. I'd have to do more study before I came to any conclusion on that. Any way, the point is not whether we have done it in the past, but whether it is a good idea in the first place, and whether or not it is Constitutional.
Link Posted: 4/3/2002 4:16:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DaMan:
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By DaMan: SO WHAT EXACTLY WERE YOU TRYING TO SAY,RIK?
View Quote
What I was saying would be self-evident to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Someone said that the US had avoided alliances with other nations for a long time after its creation. I pointed out that we had an alliance with France from the very beginning and wouldn't have won the war with England without them, and the only reason we didn't MAINTAIN an alliance with France was because of the Reign of Terror.
View Quote
"Somehow, you've fixated on this and can't seem to let it go." - Rikwriter As Lucie would say..... "Oh Rikki!" Look at libertyof76's quotes! Which one was made before Jefferson or Washington knew of the "Reign of Terror"? The statements they made, were made from EXPERIENCE! And were as true THEN as they are NOW! DaMan
View Quote
truly you must be fixated on something other than civil dialogue. i understood the point rik was making. and he made it quite clearly. here's another version, since you didn't seem to get it the first time.
In spite of the opinions and beliefs held by the founding fathers opposing alliances and political entanglements with other countries, such alliances (and entanglements) were readily practiced by those same founding fathers. In addition, without these alliances, it is likely that the colonials would have lost the war with Britian and you would be a subject instead of a citizen.
View Quote
now was that difficult? just because they preached isolationism as a utopian ideal doesn't mean that they practiced it, or that it was even preferably for all circumstances.
Top Top