Posted on 04/23/2004 7:37:57 AM PDT by u-89
We should remember that since World War II, in 35 U.S. attempts to promote democracy around the world none have succeeded.
From the neocon perspective, that's known as a winning streak.
While this conflict seems to be esculang far more rapidly than Viet Nam- I am not sure Iraq will ever see those kids of casualties as were suffered in Viet Nam. For one thing- military technology - both offensive and defensive is much better than 30 years ago. Battle field medicine is far better today as well.
But the biggest reason Iraq will most likely be a long slow bleeding wound with perhaps 500 to 1000 KIA a year and not like Viet Nam (thousandns killed a year from 67 to 71) is that there is no superpower life line to sustain these insurgents.
James Madison was president from 1809 to 1817. Venezuela did not achieve full independence until 1830. Here is the history, in a nutshell:
After several unsuccessful uprisings, the country achieved independence from Spain in 1821 under the leadership of its most famous son, Simon Bolivar. Venezuela, along with what are now Colombia, Panama, and Ecuador, was part of the Republic of Gran Colombia until 1830, when it separated and became a sovereign country.
Mr. President: The President of the United States, on the 4th instant, approved and signed "An act further to amend the charter of the city of Washington;" and, on the 8th instant, "An act for the relief of the citizens of Venezuela";..."
$50,000 of foreign aid after their terrible earthquake near Caracas.
Perhaps the congress used "Venezuela" to refer to that area of Gran Columbia- though it does seem extremely undiplomatic not to have used the name of the country!
There was indeed a devastating earthquake in Caracas, on March 26th, or 28th, or May 25th, 1812, depending on which source you read. Congress brought up the aid question smack in the middle of debates on war resolutions in both houses. Whether Congress had humanitarian aid in mind, or left-handed aid to a military ally, is hard to say. But it is a given that wartime "emergency" measures often encroach on the Constitution, or ignore it altogether.
Foreign aid is not one of the ennumerated powers, so by strict construction, it is unquestionably unconstitutional.
President George W. Bush on September 15, 2001:
President Urges Readiness and Patience
Excerpt:
We will not only deal with those who dare attack America, we will deal with those who harbor them and feed them and house them.
No deception.
I used to admire Ron, but he's become a hysteric who traffics in falsehoods.
If Dr. Paul's really suggesting that the militias have genuine, freely chosen, grassroots support among the Iraqi people, then he's just plain misrepresenting the facts. A rebel leader that truly has the support of his people wouldn't be hiding behind women and children to take potshots at our forces, and then dare us to counterattack so he can blame the resulting deaths of innocents on us.
Are you aware that the very first SCOTUS decision to invalidate an act of Congress, invalidated a portion of an act that was passed by the very first Congress? As we can see, their judgements on the Constitution were not perfect. In some cases they went with expediency without giving due regard to whether their actions were constitutional. They were human, after all. They made mistakes like everyone else.
You've been asked by more than one poster to explain how the Constitution authorizes foreign aid. It would be much appreciated if you'd answer that question, if you have an answer.
Of course, but obviously we both agree that they would consider it a neccessary and proper expenditure in the conduct of war.
It would be most extraordinarily stupid of them to think otherwise since we would still be colonies of England if France and others hadn't given us aid as part of their war against England!
Since we all agree with the Founding Fathers and the congress of 1812 that foreign aid is a constitutional means of conducting war (and please tell me of any objections to this understanding!), do either of you care to take a guess at the other way the Constitution authorizes foreign aid (it was the one mentioned in the debate over the relief act)?
Mentioned in an article about the debate- I haven't read the actual debate.
Who said I agree? I do not. That Congress or the other branches do thus or so is no argument whatsoever that such action is constitutional. The government has a long, sorry history of usurping unlawful powers -- such as this Caracas earthquake relief bill -- that are not specifically granted by the Constitution.
Many years ago, I came across a FREEMAN story based on an 1884 biography that explained the issue exceptionally clearly -- i.e., why seemingly kind and charitable acts by the the government are not only unconstitutional but subversive of the whole American vision of a free nation. Google immediately turned up several copies of this story, and it reads as well as ever. I link the first one I came across, though I know nothing of the web site. Anyone with an interest in the issue should enjoy this tale and its lessons.
SOCKDOLAGER -- A tale of Colonel Crockett and the Constitution
Exactly.
I agree, there will not be a large scale battles like in Vietnam for the reasons you mentioned. Iraq can be more similar to Algeria (against French) or Iraq before WWII (against British). Still, sufficient (low tech) foreign help will be coming from Iran and Syria. It is matter of survival for these two regimes to secure American failure in Iraq.
What war? The War of 1812 broke out a month after Congress voted to provide (purely nonmilitary) aid to Venezuela, so try again.
ANY war: Madison's war, Jefferson's Barbary War or Adams' Quasi-War to keep it to the Founding Fathers.
Did the Founding Fathers consider foreign aid a neccessary and proper expenditure in the conduct of war?
It's not a hard, unfair, or trick question inquest.
(BTW: you forgot to mention that Madison was a slaveholder. I think that is de riguer!)
Crockett's remarks on the abuse of the Welfare Clause are very good, though they have nothing to do with foreign aid.
Frankly, I admire Paul for being one of the few who take much the same view, like Madison did. But that just makes his past lying about the government's foreign powers more offensive to me.
As I said, I'm glad to see him avoid that in this article and wish his followers would take up his example.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.