Our Founding Fathers' Views on Foreign Interventionism

[Herb Schaffler]

James Madison said, "Can we believe that a government of a federal nature, consisting of many coequal sovereignties, and particularly having one branch chosen from the people, would drag the militia unnecessarily to an immense distance? This, sir, would be unworthy the most arbitrary despot." Apparently we've found those arbitrary despots in the names of McKinley, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhour, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, both Bushes, and Clinton.

Washington warned against "foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues" and "those overgrown military establishments which under any form of government, and inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." He said, "Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all." He said that "nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated." He said, "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of reublican government... Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other." Re: Israel and other Middle Eastern countries. He said, "Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favoriet are liable to become suspected and odious" We're labeled as anti-Semitic or demonized as not supporting the troops or as hating America and called unpatriotic. He went on to say, "while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests." In arguing against entangling ourselves in Euopean wars he stated, "Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." He said, "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."

Thomas Jefferson said in 1799, "I am for relying, for internal defence, on our militia solely till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbours from such depredations as we have experienced..." Not for "a navy which by it's own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens, & sink us under them. I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, & little or no diplomatic establishment, and I am not for linking ourselves, by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe."

We have certainly drifted far from those founding principles.

[WiseOne]

We have certainly drifted far from those founding principles.

That's putting it nicely there. I really can see how other countries hate us as we meddle in everything they do. While I agree with those principles, in principle, we are in a world now where the literal power of the sun is now in man's hands. Our founding fathers could NOT fathom something like that at the time. IF they knew the power of those weapons for MASS destruction...I wonder if they would set back and allow Iran (who states they want to wipe other countries off the face of the map) to acquire this extreme power? Who knows...but I tend to think they would have a bit of a different view. OR if they witnessed the TENS of millions killed by that madman, Hitler, in World War II, would they STILL say aw, let Iran (another madman) acquire weapons where just ONE would wipe Washington DC off the map or even New York City in ONE fell swoop? Of course, we'll never know as they are long gone...but, these were very smart (and tough) MEN...

hmmmm, provocative.

[nohil-billy]

I've noticed that liberals take the words of our founding fathers literally when they need to make a point, yet propose that our Constitution is a living document.

Like WiseOne points out, our founding fathers had no way of knowing how small the world would become. These people spent months traveling by boat between here and Europe while it can be done now in a matter of hours. I'm sure it never occured to them that a war could be fought from half a world away without ever seeing the whites of their eyes.

To suggest that those principles were still possible, even 50 years ago, is ridiculous.

[Herb Schaffler]

"Like WiseOne points out, our founding fathers had no way of knowing how small the world would become. These people spent months traveling by boat between here and Europe while it can be done now in a matter of hours. I'm sure it never occured to them that a war could be fought from half a world away without ever seeing the whites of their eyes."

"To suggest that those principles were still possible, even 50 years ago, is ridiculous."

I'm sorry, but I don't see why those principles wouldn't still work in today's world. Even if Iran does get nukes, I really don't see them using them because they know that Israel and the US could retaliate and wipe them off the map. People have misinterpreted Ahmadinezad's words anyway. According to Johnathon Cook in "Israel and the Clash of Civilizations", "The quote endlessly attributed to Ahmadinejad that he wanted to 'wipe Israel off the map' - a reimagining of a familiar Zionist fear that the Arabs want to 'drive the Jews into the eea' - was a straightforward mistranslation of one of his speeches, an error that quickly gained a life of its own after the mistake was originally made by the overworked translators of an Iranian news agency. Accurate translations were quickly offered by Farsi experts, including Juan Cole, a professor of the Modern Middle East at the University of Michigan and former editor of "The International Journal of Middle East Studies." On his website he noted that Ahmadinejad was actually quoting from the late Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Khomeini, who was himself comparing Isael's survival as an ethnic state with the illegitimate regime of the former Wester-backed Shah of Iran. 'The phrase [Ahmadinejad] then used as I read it is 'The Imam [Khomeini] said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Arash Narouzi, an Iranian intellectual who was no friend of the regime in Tehran, made much the same point: 'What exactly did he [Ahmadinejad] want wiped from the map? The answer is nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel of the map" despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".

[nohil-billy]

I can understand that to a point Herb, but not all languages readily translate into English and the meaning could be changed by interpreters to appear innocent. Sometimes it's the context and not the actual word itself.

I remember my senile Polish grandfather angrily uttering a phrase in his hospital bed that upset my mother and her sister. When I asked what it meant, I was told it wouldn't make sense to me. I was later told that the literal translation for what he said was "dogs blood." What it meant in Polish? "Son of a B*tch."

[Herb Schaffler]

Israel is claiming that Iran will have nukes within this year. This is obviously a ruse for war by Israel. According to Nir Rosen in "The Washington Note":

The Post's writers focus on claims to progress in Iran's nuclear power program that are exaggerated while denigrating the [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. 's own claim that Iran's nuclear program is on hold. And producing a nuclear device is about more than just centrifuges, and Iran is nowhere near progress in other important technologies that essential for a nuclear weapon. Iran's religious and political leaders have forsworn nuclear weapons, its supreme religious ruler has repudiated them.
We cannot at once condemn Iran for being a theocracy and then disregard the rulings of its theocrats. Though with an aggressive nuclear Israel and U.S regularly rattling their sabers who could blame Iran even if it did seek the security nuclear weapons seem to provide? Hillary Clinton recently [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. to "totally obliterate" Iran while John McCain [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. about bombing Iran and president Bush called al Qaeda and Iran two of the greatest threats to America in the 21st century. This is slightly hyperbolic since al Qaeda's only successful attack against the U.S. on September 11 ago was a strategic pinprick, not to mention a lucky shot, and Iran has no global ambitions and no interest in attacking the U.S. and in fact has never invaded another country (Iraq started the Iran-Iraq war).

[Herb Schaffler]

From powerofnarrative.blogspot

April 30, 2008

Those Clever, Dastardly Iranians! Bamboozling Us with Facts ... and Even (gasp!) Photographs!


The immense evil of the Iranian regime [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. :

Barbed wire and antiaircraft guns ring a maze of buildings in the Iranian desert that lie at the heart of the West's five-year standoff with Tehran over its program to enrich uranium.

It is a place of secrets that Iran loves to boast about, clouding the effort's real status and making Western analysts all the more eager for solid details and clues. Tehran insists that its plans are peaceful. But Washington and its allies see a looming threat.

The sprawling site, known as Natanz, made headlines recently because Iran is testing a new generation of centrifuges there that spin faster and, in theory, can more rapidly turn natural uranium into fuel for reactors or nuclear arms. The new machines are also meant to be more reliable than their forerunners, which often failed catastrophically.

On April 8, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited the desert site, and Iran released 48 photographs of the tour, providing the first significant look inside the atomic riddle.

"They're remarkable," Jeffrey G. Lewis, an arms control specialist at the New America Foundation, a nonprofit research group in Washington, said of the photographs. "We're learning things."

Most important, the pictures give the first public glimpse of the new centrifuge, known as the IR-2, for Iranian second generation. There were no captions with the photographs, so nuclear analysts around the globe are scrutinizing the visual evidence to size up the new machine, its probable efficiency and its readiness for the tough job of uranium enrichment. They see the photos as an intelligence boon.

"This is intel to die for," Andreas Persbo, an analyst in London at the Verification Research, Training and Information Center, a private group that promotes arms control, said in a comment on the blog site Arms Control Wonk.

"An intelligence boon"! "Intel to die for"! And no one had to die! Iran just ... released the photographs!

But Iran didn't provide ... captions!

Who knew such evil lurked in the hearts of those endlessly scheming Iranians! It is ghastly! Apalling!! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!

Oh, yes, we are:

Of the 48 photographs Iran released, Western analysts gave special scrutiny to one showing Mr. Ahmadinejad and his entourage viewing a disassembled IR-2, its guts arrayed on a table. Clearly visible are its casing, inner rotor, motor and several other critical parts.

Arms Control Wonk, which Dr. Lewis of the New America Foundation runs, led a discussion of the photo. Most comments focused on parts. But Geoffrey E. Forden, an arms expert at M.I.T., noted that the table also held an Iranian flag. [!!!!!]

"Indigenous manufacturing of sophisticated components is something to be very proud of," he wrote. "And showing them with an Iranian flag is a very good way of graphically proclaiming it."

"Indigenous manufacturing"! "An Iranian flag"! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!

Yes, WE ARE:

One surprise of the tour was the presence of Iran's defense minister, Mostafa Mohammad Najjar. His attendance struck some analysts as odd given Iran's claim that the desert labors are entirely peaceful in nature. In one picture, Mr. Najjar, smiling widely, appears to lead the presidential retinue.

"The presence of Iran's defense minister"! In a photograph that Iran voluntarily released! Just one of 48 photographs! That Iran voluntarily released!

It is obvious to anyone, unless you hate America to the marrow of your bones and fervently hope that all of the United States goes up in a mushroom cloud in the immediate future, that the defense minister would only be there if Iran is going to have nuclear weapons tomorrow. And tomorrow -- maybe later today, you can never be sure with such deeply malevolent people -- WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!

The story makes it painfully obvious that maybe -- if Iran actually intends to manufacture nuclear weapons -- if Iran is able to successfully conquer the numerous and significant technical problems that still lie ahead -- if a number of other factors all work out in the required way -- then, if Iran actually wanted to have nuclear weapons, maybe Iran would have them sometime between 2010 and 2015. Of course: "Iran insists it wants to make only reactor fuel for producing electricity."

Can you believe it? Iran insists it only wants reactor fuel for producing electricity. Ha. Ha. Ha. Why then -- why, I ask you! -- would Iran release 48 photographs documenting this "secret" plant and what's going on there? Huh? Answer me that, smart guys and gals!

I tell you, Iran's "secret" plant and its "secret" plans TO KILL US ALL remind me of my best friend in high school. She kept "secrets" the same exact way. Blabbermouth. Yeah, you, Ellen! Pfaugh.

But you must always remember to be afraid, very, very afraid, as the Times helpfully reminds us at the end of the story:

Some analysts see the centrifuges, despite the disclosures of the presidential tour, as a continuing enigma.

Ultimately, Tehran could use them for good or ill, for lighting cities or destroying them. Only time, they say, is likely to reveal Iran's true intentions.

Only time will tell! DA DUH DUMMMMMM!!!!

Has Iran invaded and occupied any of its neighbors? Nope. Has Iran traveled halfway around the world to invade another country? No way. Has Iran's criminal invasion and endless occupation of a country that never threatened it unleashed a series of events that have led to [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. , and made four million additional people refugees? No, sir. Does Iran keep threatening the United States by saying that "[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. "? Does Iran threaten to attack the United States because the U.S. actually has a huge nuclear arsenal?

A huge nuclear arsenal that, by the way, the U.S. and all its leading politicians keep threatening to unleash on Iran -- keeping in mind that all of this happens as the signs continue to mount that a U.S. attack on Iran becomes more certain and [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link.

No.

The United States government and its major functionaries keep threatening to entirely destroy Iran -- which has done precisely nothing of a threatening nature. Nothing.

But Iran releases photographs. 48 photographs.

Evil, I say! EVIL!

They must be stopped! NOW!!!!!

[nohil-billy]

All those statistics are pish-posh and poppycock Herb. Guesstimates at best.

These are the same kind of people who said the exact same thing about North Korea for many years, and then one day......OOPS!!!

[hrdman2luv]

So if I did, forgive me.

I was listening to XM one night when a re-air of Meet the Press came on. It was aired in 1953, and had John F. Kennedy, who was an ambassador of the middle east, on it.

The host asked JFK why the USA can't make friends with Iraq and other countries in the middle east. JFK stated " we have been dominating the Iraqi's and the middle east for 30 years"..........

Now, I'm thinking, that stretches back to the 1920's. So we now have been sticking our noses in the middle east for over 80 years. I can only imagine how we would still be feeling if the had lost the revolutionary war.

So far, I haven't been able to find the audio. I will keep looking. It was very educational. I don't feel sorry for the people of the middle east for allowing their country to be dominated for so long. But I can understand why they hate us.