Posted on 07/03/2006 9:26:03 PM PDT by familyop
Badly led? Yeah lets get more socialists in power so we can be like Europe.
Ignorant? How's this big picture? With the exception of US,Isreal and possibly Australia, secular socialists run the parts of the world that Muslim's don't, and that of course recognizes the wholesale surrendering that the secularists are currently undertaking.
"doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks" (83 per cent)
At least they got something right.
Almost everybody calls us an empire. Then by God let's be one. Take over the Middle East, Canada, and Mexico. Slam their dix in the dirt. Then when we get settled with that take over another country.
F*CK 'EM. A PzLdr poll finds that if the U.S hadn't intervened in two World Wars, the House of Windsor would still be known by its German name. Brits have a short memory, and apparently project their imperial guilt on us. Tough. And as I've posted before [for all the posturing pipsqueaks of Europe}, ROME DOES NOT ASK GAUL [or Brittania] FOR PERMISSION TO MAKE WAR ON PARTHIA.
The Telegraph as changed over the past two years. I guess it was the barclay brothers influence after they bought it but it really has changed. It's now a center (uk), run of the mill paper. Really no reason to go there anymore. They even fired Mark Steyn!
You are joking, aren't you? What's your take on good manners, honesty and decency? Damn proud of those attributes, also, I hope.
Ditto, but oh, how defensive we can get!
You're not very familiar with American history.
And we keep military forces overseas in order to stop attacks from coming to us on our own soil (and while we're at it, to defend allies). Every conservative American knows that.
I don't know what you mean by a 'conservative American', but I know what an empire is. When you have over quarter million men under arms propping up 'friendly' governments around the world you're running an empire. Don't be squeamish about it. Playing kingmaker over the lines drawn by the last gasps of the French and British empires in the Middle East has us embroiled in a war today.
You can make the argument that we should have an empire instead of a neutral, free republic, but don't pretend it's what our Founders set out to create. Not on this day.
We already tried and failed more than once to take Canada. We have already taken huge portions of Mexico (and ironically they're moving back in). We have our hands full in the Middle East today, and if you didn't notice the generals coming back say we need more manpower to accomplish our goals. One more thing you might take note of, the American public is getting tired of the burdens of empire...
You're confusing the intentions of Republican Americans with those of centralized governments of old Europe. Take your anti-defense, anti-American propaganda elsewhere.
When we manage the level of influence we've had for the last 100 years for several more centuries you can compare us to Rome. Of course we're debasing the currency a lot faster, and you know how that turned out for the Romans, right?
Do you hold the truth itself as anti-American? Or do you deny we have a quarter million soldiers stationed around the world propping up foreign governments and embroiling us in their wars?
You'd damn Washington himself as anti-defense, anti-American for opposing your world view of a globe dominated by the U.S. military.
"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
In the execution of such a plan, 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 towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
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 republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. 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. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
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. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. 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. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
Today on 'Free Republic' Washington's good sense would get a 'barf alert' in the headline...
Ever been abroad?
You want to say that to Mad Ivan?
What do you think of Margaret Thatcher, or Winston Churchill? Have you ever been to Britain?
bugger you and bugger the brits...
Their IQ is slipping.
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.