Slaughter In Syria

This from The Guardian:

The US's top military officer has warned Syria it could face armed intervention as international outrage grows over the massacre of women and children by tanks and artillery in Houla.

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said that following the UN security council's condemnation of the slaughter – in which more than 100 people were killed, many of them children – there needed to be increased diplomatic pressure on Damascus. But he added that the US would be prepared to act militarily if it was "asked to do so".

Of course we won't have to worry about the USA coming to the aid of kids being slaughtered by brutal dictators anymore.  You see, the Ron Paul revolution is gaining strength and with it the determination of the "non-interventionists".

Women, children, Jews, dark skinned people and any other group chosen for annihilation will just have to suffer horrible deaths, unless these modern day beat-nicks can persuade little Hitler wannabes to be nicer over a cup of Starbucks.

Sorry ladies. You'll just have to put up with rape and genital mutilation because the America which is a bout to be is going to be much more interested in what's new at Best Buy than whats best for human rights.

Comments

[John Good]

[Marc's Reply: Okay, now you are debating by asking good questions, grasshopper. First, we cut foreign aid to any nation which harbors or gives aid and/or comfort to terrorists...]

Alright, so we will help Syrians AFTER we cut wasteful foreign aid, eliminate the IRS, close a few departments, change the tax code to encourage investment here, get rid of the federal welfare state, try to send illegals to their countries, cut wasteful military spending, and THEN we will help the Syrians. I can definitely support you on that Marcus.

[Flag Waver]

Marcus these are wonderful ideas. Why didn't you bring these out during your campaign? I think a lot more people would have voted for you if you had done that. [Marc's reply: I did, but I didn't have a million dollar megaphone being held to my mouth for me. ]

[Adam Love]

Wow, those sound like some pretty good ideas. How many of them has Romney promised to implement? [Marc's reply: Not sure exactly, but he's not Obama!]

[Adam Love]

"First, I am not in favor of borrowing money from China. But that short hand phrase is not an honest one. We do not technically "borrow" money. We sell marketable securities to raise money and anyone, you included, can buy them if you wish. I wouldn't, because I don't favor inflationary currency policies and don't think they are worth the price."

Well, that's excellent, and I'm glad to hear it. You've done great work striving to educate your readers about the dishonest monetary policies of the Federal Reserve and the danger of our out-of-control debt.

With that said, though, how do you propose to pay for our current foreign policy, which obligates Americans to ride to the rescue of any oppressed people anywhere in the world? You say Americans should be morally obligated to police the world, but as you yourself have pointed out many times, we're broke.

How, then, do you want to pay for it? Raise taxes? You've made a huge deal recently about how Thomas Massie and Rand Paul and anyone else who wants to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits is betraying our seniors, so you clearly don't want to find savings that way. So how do you propose to finance both guns and butter?

[Marc's Reply: Okay, now you are debating by asking good questions, grasshopper. First, we cut foreign aid to any nation which harbors or gives aid and/or comfort to terrorists or policies which threaten our national security or economic security if you consider them separate items.

Next, we eliminate the IRS and the repressive income tax scheme by adopting the "Fair Tax".

Third, we defund a number of cabinet level departments.

Fourth, we incentivize American companies to invest here and bring jobs here from over seas.

Fifth, we turn all forms of welfare over to the individual states without the Federal Government being involved.

Sixth, we eliminate the anti-trust exemption for Insurance companies and push medical care back to a market driven pricing structure which could include eliminating managed care plans which drive costs upward.

Seventh, we demand re-payment of as much foreign debt owed to the United States as we can possibly collect.

Eighth, we insist that all illegals return to their country of origin and apply through legal channels, opening up jobs to American citizens thus cutting unemployment payouts and welfare payouts.

Ninth, we insist that Congress find a way to monitor military spending to cut the windfall profits of military contractors so that we have more money for the things our military needs rather than paying a hundred dollars for every screw driver.

Tenth, we defund the UN and withdraw from membership and review all of our treaties to make certain that none conflict with our rights or liberties as a sovereign nation.

There is no single silver bullet and that's why the catch phrase "cut spending" is a shallow if not hollow bit of political ear candy.

Once we have a robust economy in this country we can re-assign the dollars necessary to prevent genocide and by inspiring freedom and liberty world wide eventually reach a point where it is a much less dangerous place.

Those are a few initial ideas. I've got plenty more. Thanks for the comment.]

[The Tea Party]

The founders intended the war power to reside in congress. That way the people's house, not a tyrannical king with good intentions all around the world, would declare war.

This Wilsonian, progressive, big-government foreign policy that sees America's military as world social workers who are to right every wrong in the world is wrong. It's not constitutional, not prudent, not fiscally responsible, not moral, and...not conservative. Being the world police force makes us LESS safe.

[Marc's reply: Once again your historical arguments and history don't line up. To be an originalist, as I am, you must understand the contextual definition of war. War is not armed conflict. War is the use of military force to conquer a nation. It is the use of force which authorizes the destruction of civilians and their entire civilization in order to bring them under submission. When the Constitution talks about Congress having exclusive power to "declare war" that had a specific meaning.

Since then the Congress, recognizing it's powers and the conflicting interpretation of the Constitutional authority of the Commander in Chief to control the military, passed the War Powers Resolution. They have in fact authorized the President to use military force without a declaration of war. That was an act of Congress.

Your concern with regard to how Presidents have overstepped their bounds is a legitimate one, but don't get hung up on the half baked idea that so many people pass around these days that there can never be military action without a declaration of war. History does not support that notion, and neither does the law. Thanks for the comment.]

[Adam Love]

Then by all means, let's continue borrowing money from China to finance foreign adventurism and assert, as Marco Rubio does, that everything that happens everywhere is somehow our business.

If you want to wave the banner of this philosophy, do so with the understanding that this is a big-government, PROGRESSIVE ideology, not a conservative one. If that's where you want to plant your flag, that's certainly your right. Just be honest with yourself (and your readers) about its leftist, Wilsonian origins.

[Marc's Reply: One of the problems in debating your mindset is your propensity to overstatement. First, I am not in favor of borrowing money from China. But that short hand phrase is not an honest one. We do not technically "borrow" money. We sell marketable securities to raise money and anyone, you included, can buy them if you wish. I wouldn't, because I don't favor inflationary currency policies and don't think they are worth the price. Second, I do not consider coming to the aid of a people who are being slaughtered "foreign adventurism". I do not consider it reckless nor purposed by a desire for excitement. One does not need to be a uniformed vigilante in order to come to the aid of a person being raped in an alley. So, if we are going to continue to debate this you should at least consider using terms and ideas which reveal a deeper understanding of the issue than the kind of "buzz words" typically thrown around in OWS type crowds. But thanks for the comment.]

[Adam Love]

"Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once 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 standard 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 be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice."

John Quincy Adams, before the U.S. House of Representatives, July 4, 1821

[Marc's reply: Eloquent indeed, but wrong for today. We are not witness to nations struggling to become independent of kings. We are witness to brutality against innocent citizens, being slaughtered by powerful dictators, helpless to help themselves. Sorry, we must strongly disagree. I see America as much more of a friend to those who are victims than you do. Thanks for the comment.]