“On principle Paul is in line with the founding fathers and the original of the Constitution. The US today has an offensive military force and employs it around the world at the whim of the president. The founders envisioned defensive forces, stationed inside the boundaries of the country supplemented by local militias. The founders did not envision the US becoming involved in what they considered to be foreign entanglements across the globe.”
Really? You mean those founding fathers that fought a war with France (Quasi War) and fought the british in the war of 1812? And, if they didn’t envision an offensive military force, what about sending the US Navy to Tripoli? Then, there was that Monroe Doctrine thingy. Looks like the founding fathers did quite a bit of entangling.
also the US had the good fortune up to the 1900s to benefit from the protection of the Royal Navy. For the most part we had a commonality of interests in “freedom of the seas” meaning promoting and encouraging world trade (There was that 1812 dust up that you pointed out!). The US for the most part didn’t have the ocean going navy to do much more then cheer the RN along. The exceptions being Perry’s Expedition to Japan, which was “Open-Your-Ports-for-Trading-&-Our -Whaling-Ships-for-Emergency-Fitting-or-We-Will-Shell-Your-Ports” proposal. There was a similar proposal made to the Hermit Kingdom - Korea in 1867, but it was more of a “Stop-Killing-Stranded-Whalemen-or-We-Shell-Your-Ports” proposal, that took a landing of the USMC to put an exclamation point on that proposal. Again Paulites have a very selective reading of US history.
“And, if they didnt envision an offensive military force, what about sending the US Navy to Tripoli?”
From the halls of Montezooooma, to the shores of Tripoliiii......
All kidding aside, great post! Nothing annoys me more than Paultards inventing history.