The Defense of Israel - Constitutional or Not?

[rah45]

In several different political threads, the subject of the U.S. military protecting Israel has surfaced. In my probing the advocates for their reasons to support the defense of Israel using our money and other resources, I invariably come to this basic answer: God wills it. The same people state they are complete supporters of the U.S. Constitution, even if it is an imperfect document (written by men, how could it not be?). I am beginning this thread to say that the defense of Israel for religious purposes is unconstitutional, and that someone who does advocate it does not embrace the core values of this nation. We have our differences, and to an extent we celebrate this. The Constitution provided a military for the common defense of these united states, not these united states plus any other nation the majority decides to help. It gave very few powers to the federal government and gave the rest to the states or to the people. The idea is that, even with only 13 states all on the Eastern seaboard, we were too different a people to have one central government control us all and meet all of our needs/desires at the same time. That is why our state governments have so many more powers.

We as a nation are not threatened by the perceived impending demise of Israel. We are not acting in self-defense when we contribute to their defense. They don't even necessarily need our help. They have plenty of military resources and technology (including nuclear weapons) to defend themselves effectively, and they've proven in several wars that they are perfectly capable of achieving that end. So, we have no constitutional reason to be there.

Thus, it seems that the only major reason so many people advocate supporting Israel is either because of what happened during and immediately after the Holocaust, or because these people believe that the Divine has declared his protection over Israel and promised his blessing to whoever helps defend them. I support these people entirely! I support their right to believe in a God and to believe in what He says to do. I support their willingness to fight for their beliefs. However, I don't want them to do it with my money. They want to use my family's resources (yes, my family pays a lot of taxes, guys) to fund a nation for reasons other than the defense of the United States. That is no different than me and many others banding together to use government resources (that you guys supply) to fund the establishment of a new nation of iguana-worshippers in the middle of Russia because we all read in a book that if we did, we'd all get free candy canes for our birthdays. You. Are. Stealing. From me. The guy you have all said that you like, that enjoy talking to on this forum. You're stealing from me and my family. You're using the government to fund your personal vendetta against any who would oppose Israel. Your actions are unconstitutional, and they are insulting to the very idea of liberty.

You know what you should support? You should support a candidate who wants to reduce the military spending to enough to defend the U.S. from any threat, and any tax money left in the budget goes right back to the taxpayers. I support your right to band together with other like-minded folks who support Israel, and hire mercs to help Israel defend herself, pay for weapons for the Israelis to use, pay for any supplies they might need, and even pay for scientists to help them advance their defense technology. I completely support your ability to do this, and I will have engaging conversations with you about it. However, your ability to support Israel just from your own little group would be severely diminished compared to what it is now, and you don't like that idea. You want to steal my resources that I would rather use to buy a new car window regulator (mine quit working a month ago), or pay off a debt, or purchase some new tires, or take my wife out for a nice dinner (which I haven't been able to do for months and months because we cannot afford it). You want to take the money my family provides, and spend it on your own religious agenda. If it weren't the government doing it, and you had to actually come take the money yourself, you wouldn't do it. You know that if you did, I'd defend myself, my family and my property with deadly force and the law would be on my side.

If you want to vote for a guy who supports the unconstitutional support for Israel, be my guest. You have a right to vote for who you want to be the president. Just don't pretend that you 100% support the Constitution. A huge percentage of the American taxpayers do not believe what you believe, and constantly make outcries against these actions. You hear them, and you do not care. You care more about using the taxpayer-funded U.S. military to further your personal religious agenda than you do about adhering to the Constitution and seeking other, private avenues of supporting Israel. It's no different than the mandatory healthcare. You're stealing to get what you want.

Yes, I mean this with respect. I want you guys to think about this in a different way. This is how I see the debate. Flame away.

[WhiteWolf]

I think there's a higher question you need to be asking rather than is it constitutional.

Is it the right thing to do?

The Constitution can not dictate morals, virtue, or any knowledge of good and evil. People have a problem with Israel because of religion, rhetoric, and out right lies. I'm not even going to combat those because it's too frustrating and I did enough of that while I was away. The reality is there are many nation were genocide occurs and the US stands idly by and allows it because they have no political or economic interest with that nation. Africa is a prime example. You may not like it, but to me the call do what is inherently right or good is far more important than the Constitution. So when Arab nations like Iran confess that they wish to kill ALL Jews.........well I think you get the picture.

[RS762]

I think there's a higher question you need to be asking rather than is it constitutional.

Is it the right thing to do?

No.
I like this concept that some seem to have that Israeli lives are worth more than Arab lives.
Im against all military involvement in the middle east because it simply leads to more WAR. PERIOD.

[WhiteWolf]

I think there's a higher question you need to be asking rather than is it constitutional.

Is it the right thing to do?

No.
I like this concept that some seem to have that Israeli lives are worth more than Arab lives.
Im against all military involvement in the middle east because it simply leads to more WAR. PERIOD.

No, no, no. At no point am I saying Arab lives are less in important. Preventing a nation from commiting genocide is a righteous cause period regardless of what continent or region they're in. I'm not saying just get involved over oil, opium, lithium, and mineral deposits. I'm not just condoning bullshit wars like we're currently fighting. They're unjust.

[rah45]

I think there's a higher question you need to be asking rather than is it constitutional.

Is it the right thing to do?

With that, I also think there's a higher question you need to ask yourself.

What gives you the right to dictate your morals to myself and others via the American political system? You're not stupid...you're educated and you already know that I respect your opinion. We've talked personally over the phone and I like you a lot. However, in this, I believe you are wrong. I'm not saying that I would not support Israel...I'm saying that forcing our personal choices on the entire American populace is in itself morally wrong. The only thing the Federal government should be doing are things that benefit ALL the American people: international trade that benefits the entire nation, a common defense that secures all of our liberties, and enforcement of the basic civil liberties of Americans across the republic/empire. Anything else is reserved to the individuals, or the states. You can, if given back your tax money, band together with other like-minded individuals and possibly help Israel even more by skipping the political and bureaucratic bullshit. You can send the money straight to where it is needed, with no strings attached (like Obama threatening to shoot down Israeli aircraft - we're not their "friends").

[sledge]

I think there's a higher question you need to be asking rather than is it constitutional.

Is it the right thing to do?

 with no strings attached (like Obama threatening to shoot down Israeli aircraft - we're not their "friends").

What?  Where did that comment come from?

I can understand helping Israel as a National Security matter.  As things are now we need the oil from the middle east.  Whether Israel's neighboring countries tolerate Israel (Saudi Arabia) or hate them (mostly everyone else), they have to consider Israel in all of their actions.  If it wasn't for Israel most of the countries in the area would be in constant conflict, arab against arab, and killing each other.  Israel tends to unify them.  The Arab spring is an example.  Think that's the end of the violence for Egypt, Libya. Syria and the rest.  NOT!  They'll find other reasons to kill each other and anyone else who happens by.

I can see sending Israel defense funds.  What blows my mind is us sending foreign aid money to China.

[rah45]

I think there's a higher question you need to be asking rather than is it constitutional.

Is it the right thing to do?

 with no strings attached (like Obama threatening to shoot down Israeli aircraft - we're not their "friends").

What?  Where did that comment come from?

When Israel considered sending in an aircraft strike to take out the Iranian nuclear plant/whatever, Obama said if they fly over Iraqi air space that the U.S. military would fire on them. He completely opposed any preemptive attack that Israel felt was necessary. In other words, they do what we approve, and if they don't we put their head on the chopping block.

I can understand helping Israel as a National Security matter.  As things are now we need the oil from the middle east.  Whether Israel's neighboring countries tolerate Israel (Saudi Arabia) or hate them (mostly everyone else), they have to consider Israel in all of their actions.  If it wasn't for Israel most of the countries in the area would be in constant conflict, arab against arab, and killing each other.  Israel tends to unify them.  The Arab spring is an example.  Think that's the end of the violence for Egypt, Libya. Syria and the rest.  NOT!  They'll find other reasons to kill each other and anyone else who happens by.

How is it a National Security matter? If we did not meddle in the Middle East, giving them weapons technology and funding and pissing them off through political "interventions," we would not be fighting with them like this. You're completely right in that they'd fight each other, and thus pretty much keep one another on a roughly mid or late-20th century technological level. Not a threat to us. If Israel exists, the only reason they consider us as hostile is because we're already there supporting Israel. Take the U.S. out of the equation, voice our "free trade with all, ally with none" policy the Founders desired, and watch as the world becomes more peaceful towards us over time. In trying to "help" the world (and that's a generous term), we have only royally fucked ourselves. The last truly justified war we fought was World War II. All other wars have either been none of the federal government's (and thus the U.S. military's) business to enter, or things that we brought upon ourselves from blowback (the Middle Eastern conflicts, from the Gulf War to today). If you want to contribute to another nation's defense, I support you! Just do it privately with the tax money you contribute. Don't pretend that helping "x" country is what ALL of us want. You're wrong, and it's stealing. I don't want to take your money for healthcare, I don't want it to buy me ammunition, I don't want it to pay off some bills so I can have my wife back 2 more days a week from working overtime since jobs are scarce...need I really continue?

I can see sending Israel defense funds.  What blows my mind is us sending foreign aid money to China. What blows my mind is the federal government, limited to a few specific roles by the Constitution, having the ability to use our tax money to fund ANYONE other than Americans. What blows it even further are supporters of that Constitution who support this behavior, if it coincides with their own beliefs. If someone wants to use your tax money for their healthcare, it's wrong and I expect you to stand with me. If someone wants to use our tax money to help "x" nation, no matter what it is, I want you to stand with me because that, too, is wrong. We can still donate to other nations (again, completely bypassing the bureaucracy and political bullshit), without offending other tax-paying Americans via doing it in a private fashion. You have already contributed to pro-firearms independent organizations in the past, I believe. Why not support Israel in that fashion, without all the infighting? You do not know what is best for my money in my situation, nor of someone in California, or Alaska, or New Mexico for that matter. Leave my money alone, and let me do with it as I wish. If you can convince me to contribute to your cause via private conversation, then do it. That is how it should be done. THAT is liberty. THAT is freedom. The federal government doing things it's not authorized to do via the Constitution is the opposite of freedom, and you're supporting that method.

[JohnyMac]

I reread the US Constitution again this morning. In no part of the Constitution does it say we shall support another country with $$$ or military support. So I voted Not Sure.

There is allot of things that are not in the Constitution that we are doing now. Most of which I do not agree with; some I do.

Let's take out of the equation the religious points for supporting Israel at the moment.

Israel is an important partner in the region that a substantial amount of our crude oil comes from. Israel shares with the US a religion, form of government, language, enemies, etcetera. Which we do not share with Eqypt, Syria, Libya, etctera.

The Jews and America have been intertwined since colonial times. I believe that the first Jew came to the New World in the late 1500's. With synagogues set up first in Manhattan and followed in Newport, RI. in the mid 1600's. To a degree this should not support my argument in why we support Israel; however IMO, it is part of the equation.   

I agree with what Sledge wrote above, "If it wasn't for Israel most of the countries in the area would be in constant conflict, arab against arab, and killing each other." Which of course would affect the flow of oil to our shores.

Israel serves the United States a purpose.

[rah45]

Israel serves the United States a purpose.

@ JMac: I agree and disagree, but that is another topic entirely.

To the forum:

This topic I started is not really about Israel. It concerns a much deeper problem among the members here: the willingness to rebel against the Constitution for personal reasons. You cannot subvert the U.S. Constitution for anything. ANYTHING. Like I said, there are private ways to support Israel that will still give them much-needed assistance, from the same people who are currently desiring to support them, anyway. The exceptions are this: you're bypassing the loss of money and effectiveness from bureaucracy and political process, you're capable of giving to Israel without adding tons of stipulations to your gift (I mean really, how many here would have threatened to fire on Israeli aircraft like Obama did? Not me.), and most of all...you will be doing it in accordance with the Constitution. Is the last part of this sentence not registering here?

Let's ask this another way, shall we? I'd like to settle it. The Constitution does NOT grant the federal government the ability to use taxpayers' money to fund other nations, just as it does not grant it the ability to use taxpayers' money to fund national healthcare. The only other way to lawfully do this is via a Constitutional amendment. So, how many people on this forum supporting defying the Constitution to force everyone to pay for the support of any foreign nation, Israel or not? There is no middle ground here, guys. What powers the Constitution does not explicitly grant to the federal government, is granted to the states or to the people. Therefore, whoever condones using taxpayer money to fund Israel is willfully disobeying the document that, to this point, all the members of this board (that I have seen) have sworn to defend against encroachment by government forces if it became necessary. You don't have to like all the various parts of our Constitution, but until you conduct a successful political campaign to amend it, you are compelled to abide by it. There is no gray area here (even though there is in the poll, to help make people feel better).

So, with that said, I would like to see responses after this post from the people who believe that rebelling against the Constitution is warranted if it means supporting "x" nation who you believe is worth supporting. If you do, you are no different than the people who want to use taxpayer money to provide healthcare for all, who want to defy the Constitution to take away our firearms, who want to defy the Constitution and censor the Internet/free speech, etc. You either obey the supreme law of our land or you do not. Your response will likely strongly affect how others on this forum view your "patriotism" and your stance towards true liberty and freedom of choice.

[sledge]

This was going to get way longer than I want to put into it knowing it is to no avail.  So instead of all that I was writing I'll just say this.

How is it a National Security matter?  You're a smart guy you should be able to figure that out.  Step away from Dr. Paul's foreign policy stand it would be the cause of much death (millions) in this country if ever enacted.  It would be the cause of those deaths just as it was the last time we followed that kind of thinking.  Only this time the weapons are much more efficient.

The Federal Government does have the Constitutional authority to dispense defense funds to Israel under it's National Security obligations.

Even if the Constitution was followed by the letter your money would still be being used and you would still be taxed.  It would just be collected differently.  Collected by the individual states and the national security portion forwarded to the Fed. 



     

   

[rah45]

This was going to get way longer than I want to put into it knowing it is to no avail.  So instead of all that I was writing I'll just say this.

How is it a National Security matter?  You're a smart guy you should be able to figure that out.  Step away from Dr. Paul's foreign policy stand it would be the cause of much death (millions) in this country if ever enacted.  It would be the cause of those deaths just as it was the last time we followed that kind of thinking.  Only this time the weapons are much more efficient.

You will have to explain to me how millions in this country would die. Millions could die right now, regardless. An enemy country could launch an EMP in the atmosphere over the middle of the nation, and poof millions die and we're temporarily (perhaps permanently) erased as a superpower. It's possible to smuggle in a nuclear weapon even now with our security measures, because no defensive measures are perfect. I didn't say do not defend ourselves. I said that defending Israel is not defending ourselves. We only became the victim of Muslim aggression in the modern age after WE meddled in THEIR affairs, and for what? Natural resources that we already possess but don't want to use for "environmental" reasons.

The Federal Government does have the Constitutional authority to dispense defense funds to Israel under it's National Security obligations.

The Federal government does have the Constitutional authority to dispense defense funds to further our self defense. Supporting Israel does not do this. You have yet to convince me of this.

Even if the Constitution was followed by the letter your money would still be being used and you would still be taxed.  It would just be collected differently.  Collected by the individual states and the national security portion forwarded to the Fed. 

Yes, otherwise there would be no national military presence to defend the entire United States. We need to pay taxes to that end. We just don't need to pay for keeping our men and women in other nations that do not threaten us. I can talk all day long about the measures our government could take that would help us much more than occupying sovereign nations, subjugating their people to "democracy," and supporting a nation that really does nothing for us other than serve as a small ally in a region where we "need" natural resources (that we already possess). For instance, actually growing a backbone when dealing with enemies goes a long way to deterrence. So we have enemies in the Middle East? Cool. Soak every single Muslim city and village in that nation with pigs' blood from aircraft tankers, then bomb them all to hell. See how the rest of the Muslim world likes it. Mess with us, and we'll not only kill you, we'll guarantee you a ticket straight to the abyss. If they all ally against us and pool resources to come after us, well the world has not witnessed a nuclear explosion in a long time. Pigs' blood. Nuclear missile. Repeat as necessary.

If we operate according to the Constitution, we will not have as many enemies, our actions will be unquestionably righteous (as was our defense in World War II), and we will prevail. Our intelligence-gathering forces are capable of maintaining a constant flow of information that will provide proof to the world and the American people that we act in self-defense, and then we strike. We don't say, "Oh, you poor people who wanted to kill us, let's help you rebuild." We kick ass, come home, point out the conflict to the rest of the world and show them we mean business. If we had a similar situation that we had in World War II concerning Japan, we could still levy economic sanctions against them, and they would have the same choice: cease their offensive operations, or try to take us for our resources. We are the most militarily powerful nation on this planet. If we take a foreign policy stand like Ron Paul's we will have far fewer foreign enemies, become economically stronger, become more self-sufficient, will have more respect worldwide, and still will be able to effectively defend our people.

[sledge]

I agree 100% in the kick ass and come home statement.  Nation building is not our responsibility.

You mentioned WWII.  This is a perfect example, to a smaller degree, of what we will get if if we revert back to Dr. Paul's vision of what America's foreign policy stance should be.

Our National Security involves a lot more than just our military and keeping people with guns from crossing our borders.  (And today they don't even have to do that, just push buttons and send missiles in.)  The economy is what allows National Security to even exist.  This is where current and past Administrations, Congresses and the Judicial Activists have taken actions which have severely damaged our national security.  Both through laws created and laws not enforced.

Our military protects our economic interests which enables our economic security and thus our national security.  If not for our military bases overseas our economic security would collapse due to the actions of those nations we are currently holding in check.

All actions do have consequences which are negative and positive.  Yes, some people hate us because we are there, others thank us.  The people who hate us have ulterior motives which would become more evident should we withdraw to our own shores. 

Not only small nations would take advantage of the vacuum.  Our larger adversaries would as well as they expand their power and influence.  They would not follow our lead but instead laugh at us and our naivity.  The danger that would confront the United States in that kind of a vacuum makes what we face today, or for that matter what we faced in the cold war, look like child's play.

To think that if we merely follow the Constitution we will not have as many enemies is a remarkable statement given the history of mankind.  I suggest that in actuality there is no truth in it   

 

     

[rah45]

You mentioned that we need to retain our military fingers (if you will) throughout the world in order to protect our economic interests. I ask you, what is there in the world that we do not already possess in the U.S., or that we could not get via trade? Nothing. We have everything we need to survive economically and militarily. We cover the width of the North American continent, from sea to shining sea. Our resources are actually very much untapped. What fossil resources we do have, if we would actually USE them, would last far longer than we would need them if we just commit to developing cheaper, more efficient renewable energy technology. People say, "Well, those oil reserves won't last past another 150-200 years." Are you seriously saying that we don't have the capability to successfully address this within the next few decades? That is unrealistic thinking.

Your next argument is that the hostile governments of the world will take advantage of our absence, using it to take the other resources and then threaten us. However, you're wrong. They already have the capability to band together and come after us. They have the manpower, if not the superior technologies. They won't because it would be too costly, and because we have the most lethal nuclear arsenal on the planet. If we want to do so, Americans can literally make Earth uninhabitable from our nuclear strikes. Also, since we're looking long-term in view of history, let's consider the nature of those OpFor nations, shall we? They're Communist/Socialist/Fascist/whatever. They always have a history of oppressing their people to the point of revolution, and also fighting among their neighbors for resources. If we're keeping to our own immediate sphere of influence, and aren't trying to intervene in foreign affairs, they won't have a reason to come after us. Now, if they could unite into one body and pool their resources (as I described above), they might be able to take us via conventional warfare, but if that seems certain we'll use our nukes. They know this, and we know this. However, it will not progress to that level because China is always concerned about Russia, and vice versa, and Europe is concerned with both of those superpowers. They have too many differences and conflicting desires to become one entity and threaten us like this.

So, it seems that the only negative aspect of pulling out of world affairs except via trade and defending our immediate sphere of influence is losing access to natural resources that are in a contested area. I argue that the expense required to maintain access to those resources, both in principle (ignoring the Constitution) and in economic waste (how many trillions have we spent there, to questionable effect?), is not worth the rewards. The same rewards, natural resources, that I have already pointed out as already existing on our home soil.

***Note: By "immediate sphere of influence," I mean this - I believe in a form of the Monroe Doctrine as a good self defense measure. I'm not sure I'd take it all the way to most of Central or any of South America, but Canada and Mexico are both definitely border nations that should be defended at great cost. If a war involving an aggressor attempting to conquer those nations as well as ours occurs, keeping any fighting in those nations will prevent the war from spreading to American soil. I think that a mutual defense pact regarding land, air and sea issues is beneficial to all three nations, as long as any military forces remain under the independent control of their particular nations and only travel through one another's domain in circumstances which would activate the pact's conditions. I don't believe we should get involved in a dispute between another Central American country and Mexico, but if Russia or China wants a piece of Mexico or Canada, I support a mutual defense of our sphere of influence.

[sledge]

Rah, that sounds good.  Other than history.  We've tried that approach more than once.  It doesn't work.  Your ignoring our economy and the importance of the rest of the world to that economy both in providing resources (Which are NOT all located on our soil, I'm not sure where you got that.) and in purchasing our products and services.

If those customers are engaged in war or other conflicts on a large scale (different areas around the planet) then they are in no condition to support our economy or their own.  Shrinking economies never produce a good effect.  Of course, we could handle that by reverting to local only products which would stimulate an increase small scale manufacturing.  The savings achieved by economies of scale would disappear meaning prices on those products would rise.

The effect of what you support would have a negative effect on our standard of living.  But then, it would be nice to see the horse and buggy again.  People seemed to be friendlier when they weren't going so fast. 

Honestly Rah, I doubt what you are wishing for is ever going to happen.  Which is a good thing as I don't think you would enjoy it as much as you think you would.  Eventually we would be over run by other nations increasing their economies rather that destroying it further.  Perhaps even by Mexico or Canada.

Edit:  Never mind.  You're right.  I'm wrong.  I'm glad I've come to my senses so I can think about something else.       



   

[WhiteWolf]

I think there's a higher question you need to be asking rather than is it constitutional.

Is it the right thing to do?

With that, I also think there's a higher question you need to ask yourself.

What gives you the right to dictate your morals to myself and others via the American political system? You're not stupid...you're educated and you already know that I respect your opinion. We've talked personally over the phone and I like you a lot. However, in this, I believe you are wrong.
I can appreciate that, but at no point am I trying to dictate my morals or beliefs on anyone. This is my personality. However, I follow the Bible and God before I follow the Constitution. If God were to have me piss on it I would because ultimately you're more free in him than you will ever be in this ill conceived state. The Constitution is supposed to be nothing more than a safe guard against tyranny. However it does nothing for morals and virtue of this nation. In fact as the nation has "progressed" over the past 50 years they've done more to get rid of morals than to promote them. Why else is there so much emphasis on taking the child away from the parents and driving them towards society? It's like when I told you "liberty" is a double edged sword. You can either give liberty, or you can take it. The word itself is an oxymoron because I can impose my "liberty" on someone elses at any given point. You may not like to look at that reality, but no where does the Constitution provide the morals and the virtue to instill true freedom. The other side of this coin is regardless of what you think it is still just a piece of paper. It can be in no way be proven to be otherwise. You can not scientifically prove anything it says. It is an ethical philosophy created by deist. It ultimately does not stop anyone or anything.

 I'm not saying that I would not support Israel...I'm saying that forcing our personal choices on the entire American populace is in itself morally wrong.
I understand that. However, you say "forcing" because you believe it would lead to war eventually. Do you know what the fundamental difference was with WWII and every war we've fought since? It was morally fulfilling and Americans knew the sacrifice wasn't in vain when they saw evidence of the Holocaust and the sheer carnage throughout Europe. That is a war worth fighting. In fact I'll take it a step further to say that invading any nation over political or economic interest is HORRIBLE. When you take those factors away from the people of Israel you have to look them in the face and say "sorry, you're not worth risking my life." If this nation actually had an honest conscious I'd have joined the military long ago.

 The only thing the Federal government should be doing are things that benefit ALL the American people: international trade that benefits the entire nation, a common defense that secures all of our liberties, and enforcement of the basic civil liberties of Americans across the republic/empire.I won't hold it against you for saying "empire," but I'd not use terms like that to describe us. And we've not been a republic for decades. The idea that people still believe we have been shows how out of touch they are. Socialist started taking over this nation right after it's conception. Dare I say right after the Revolutionary War. Also, how is it you can sit there and say it's not okay for me to dictate morals (which I'm not) and yet you say the Federal government should be doing things to benefit "ALL" Americans. That's a slippery slope my friend. There's no way to make all Americans benefit or even have a general good without segregating others. "One man's pleasure is another man's pain." Also, the government does NOTHING to dictate morals. Because certain individuals cry "seperation of church and state." That wasn't supposed to mean the church stays out of the state. It's supposed to mean the state stays the hell out of the church. Or do I need to give everyone a history lesson here on why the colonist/ Pilgrims left England?

 Anything else is reserved to the individuals, or the states. You can, if given back your tax money, band together with other like-minded individuals and possibly help Israel even more by skipping the political and bureaucratic bullshit. You can send the money straight to where it is needed, with no strings attached (like Obama threatening to shoot down Israeli aircraft - we're not their "friends"). I feel I addressed this in other statements. And I feel free to send money to Israel. However, not the government, but in ministry for the people.

[mountainredneck2051]

i vote, its none of our fucking business therefore we should focus on unfucking our country

[rah45]

Rah, that sounds good.  Other than history.  We've tried that approach more than once.  It doesn't work.  Your ignoring our economy and the importance of the rest of the world to that economy both in providing resources (Which are NOT all located on our soil, I'm not sure where you got that.) and in purchasing our products and services.

I'm not an economic expert, and if you can tell me what resources we need to survive we cannot produce, I'd appreciate it. As far as I know, we produce nationally everything we need to function. We may have to make do without some things, but we are able to survive through our own natural resources. The main issue here seems to be oil, and we have plenty of that resource. If you can make a case of a certain country producing a vital resource we do not are not able to produce ourselves, I will reconsider my stance. Regarding the rest of the world and our economy, I'm not saying cut off trade. That would be isolationist. I advocate non-interventionism, which allows trade with other nations. They can still receive our goods, and we can still receive theirs, unless one nation embargoes another.

If those customers are engaged in war or other conflicts on a large scale (different areas around the planet) then they are in no condition to support our economy or their own.

This makes no sense. In producing products that we purchase, they make a profit, increasing their purchasing power, and increasing odds of their ability to afford our exports.

Shrinking economies never produce a good effect.  Of course, we could handle that by reverting to local only products which would stimulate an increase small scale manufacturing.  The savings achieved by economies of scale would disappear meaning prices on those products would rise.

So you believe that if we were forced to produce "x" product ourselves, we would resort to small scale, local production? Why can we not have a handful of major manufacturers producing the same goods on a massive scale, then distribute it around the nation? It would not be as cheap as Chinese goods, but they'd be equal or better quality, lasting longer for the money. Also, the money that you would spend into the American economy, instead of foreign economies, only further advances the national economy. This is a bad thing? How?

The effect of what you support would have a negative effect on our standard of living.  But then, it would be nice to see the horse and buggy again.  People seemed to be friendlier when they weren't going so fast.

How do you propose that we would not be able to maintain a motor vehicle capable of handling transportation needs? I refer to my earlier question: what basic goods are we not able to produce  that we need (such as efficient transportation, food, clothing, etc.)?

Honestly Rah, I doubt what you are wishing for is ever going to happen.  Which is a good thing as I don't think you would enjoy it as much as you think you would.  Eventually we would be over run by other nations increasing their economies rather that destroying it further.  Perhaps even by Mexico or Canada.

If I'm being dreamy, I'd like to know it. There is no point to having a glittery view of life (in a totally non-gay way, mind you). If you can help me to understand your point of view, and it makes logical sense and overrides my previous thoughts, that's fine. Thus far, I still see my thoughts as rational, the things I advocate achievable, and so I stand by them. I'm not opposed to trade, and I have never thought we would actually be cut off from anything essential to our economy. I'm saying that, if we did, we have enough natural resources here to get us by until we could produce an efficient alternative that replaced what we could not produce.

Edit:  Never mind.  You're right.  I'm wrong.  I'm glad I've come to my senses so I can think about something else.       

You know better than to say that. We've had several debates where we both have had our opinions changed.



   

[rah45]

By the way, Sledge, in case you were right, I Googled variations of "Can the U.S. be a self-sufficient producer of vehicles?" and got no results that provided my answer. My first thought is, can we produce rubber for tires? Because I don't know every single thing that we produce. We're able to produce clothing, food, energy, and any other basic necessity I can think of at the moment. My only question thus far is, can we produce everything necessary to manufacture and maintain vehicles? If not, are there current alternatives to any of those things that we could use to alter the manufacturing and produce an alternative, equally efficient mode of transportation?

[RS762]

By the way, Sledge, in case you were right, I Googled variations of "Can the U.S. be a self-sufficient producer of vehicles?" and got no results that provided my answer. My first thought is, can we produce rubber for tires? Because I don't know every single thing that we produce. We're able to produce clothing, food, energy, and any other basic necessity I can think of at the moment. My only question thus far is, can we produce everything necessary to manufacture and maintain vehicles? If not, are there current alternatives to any of those things that we could use to alter the manufacturing and produce an alternative, equally efficient mode of transportation?

Tires are no longer made with Rubber (IE the gum of the rubber tree) they are made from synthetically produced rubber. The problem is that it is a petrochemical product and it takes about 7 gallons of oil to make one tire. This means you don't need to rely on expensive rubber importation but we use much more oil.

Kinda sucks but it's better than the alternative and im sure we could think of something else.

[rah45]

I can appreciate that, but at no point am I trying to dictate my morals or beliefs on anyone. This is my personality. However, I follow the Bible and God before I follow the Constitution. If God were to have me piss on it I would because ultimately you're more free in him than you will ever be in this ill conceived state. The Constitution is supposed to be nothing more than a safe guard against tyranny. However it does nothing for morals and virtue of this nation. In fact as the nation has "progressed" over the past 50 years they've done more to get rid of morals than to promote them. Why else is there so much emphasis on taking the child away from the parents and driving them towards society? It's like when I told you "liberty" is a double edged sword. You can either give liberty, or you can take it. The word itself is an oxymoron because I can impose my "liberty" on someone elses at any given point. You may not like to look at that reality, but no where does the Constitution provide the morals and the virtue to instill true freedom. The other side of this coin is regardless of what you think it is still just a piece of paper. It can be in no way be proven to be otherwise. You can not scientifically prove anything it says. It is an ethical philosophy created by deist. It ultimately does not stop anyone or anything.

I was referring to you advocating taxpayers' money funding federal military support of Israel based on your personal moral obligations to the religion you chose. I do not agree with your religious views and, while I respect them, I will not have them dictate what I do with my or my family's life's work and property (money) through your representatives. I also do not believe the Bible mandates the U.S. government to support Israel. It orders you, WW, as a Christian to obey the laws of your land, and to support Israel as an individual believer. So, you are still able to obey the Constitution by opposing the Federal government's allotment of taxpayer dollars for Israel, while promoting the individual American's support of Israel.

I agree that the Constitution provides no morality. It only ever provided a means for people to pursue freedom and liberty while having a lawful defense against unconstitutional aggression against themselves. It is certainly not perfect, and is indeed a piece of paper. What makes it powerful are the ideas behind it, which are the closest that mankind has ever gotten to true freedom for a society (religious views aside - I'm speaking of the secular world, here). The Constitution has the power from the people who support it. I and many millions of others stand behind it. This is its source of power. It is filled with words, laws, that we agree to uphold and defend because it forms the basis of a social contract for a people extending across a continent.

I understand that. However, you say "forcing" because you believe it would lead to war eventually. Do you know what the fundamental difference was with WWII and every war we've fought since? It was morally fulfilling and Americans knew the sacrifice wasn't in vain when they saw evidence of the Holocaust and the sheer carnage throughout Europe. That is a war worth fighting. In fact I'll take it a step further to say that invading any nation over political or economic interest is HORRIBLE. When you take those factors away from the people of Israel you have to look them in the face and say "sorry, you're not worth risking my life." If this nation actually had an honest conscious I'd have joined the military long ago.

No, I say "forcing" because the Constitution greatly restricts power to the Federal government, and does not allow it to use taxpayer money to support Israel. The Founders limited the Federal government's power because we as individuals do not agree on everything, and as such only the basic, common needs should be served by the Federal government. Common defense, profitable trade for the states, and an aid for resolving internal conflicts is what the Founders intended for the Federal government. Today, the government "forces," because only a portion of its citizens advocates it, people to pay for unconstitutional conflicts of which they don't approve, national healthcare they don't want, etc. The Federal government is not granted that power under the Constitution, our social contract with one another as Americans.

I won't hold it against you for saying "empire," but I'd not use terms like that to describe us. And we've not been a republic for decades. The idea that people still believe we have been shows how out of touch they are. Socialist started taking over this nation right after it's conception. Dare I say right after the Revolutionary War. Also, how is it you can sit there and say it's not okay for me to dictate morals (which I'm not) and yet you say the Federal government should be doing things to benefit "ALL" Americans. That's a slippery slope my friend. There's no way to make all Americans benefit or even have a general good without segregating others. "One man's pleasure is another man's pain." Also, the government does NOTHING to dictate morals. Because certain individuals cry "seperation of church and state." That wasn't supposed to mean the church stays out of the state. It's supposed to mean the state stays the hell out of the church. Or do I need to give everyone a history lesson here on why the colonist/ Pilgrims left England?

I won't debate the "republic/empire" issue with you, as it's intended as a broad term to satisfy anyone here with differing views. If you and I had a conversation regarding it, we'd probably agree on many things. Also, when I described the Federal benefits to "ALL" Americans, my intent was to describe the three basic reasons the government was founded that DO benefit all Americans: common defense of all the states, since 13 or 50 states acting independently makes for a poor military; organized trade on a national level, to further positive economic goals of one organized entity, instead of 50 smaller entities; dispute resolution, so that we may get along peacefully and remain as a Union, with the benefits of combine trade and common defense of 50 smaller "republics." Regarding separation of church and state...why are you bringing this up? I never mentioned it. I think the state should stay out of the church, and that the church is, and always has been, separate from political processes. The people who participate may be religious individuals, but the religion itself does not control the state.

I feel I addressed this in other statements. And I feel free to send money to Israel. However, not the government, but in ministry for the people.

I support you doing whatever it is you want to do. Send your money to the government, the people, or both. Just do it from an individual level, and don't advocate giving the Federal government the authority to use my tax money to fund them. If I want to make a contribution to Israel, I will do it on my own time, on my own initiative, as an individual. I want the U.S. government to do nothing more in this respect than ensure the common defense of myself and my fellow law-abiding Americans.

[EJR914]

Not only is it unconstitutional, but I believe it will only aid in the further downfall of America.  Non-interventionism for the win!

All the neo-con warmongering chickenhawks in the world will not convince me other wise.

I truly believe that while our inteventionist policies only helped to bring terrorism to our shores a la 9/11, I also believe that our unwavering support for Israel is another reason we were attacked.

And we all know what our government has done to OUR Civil Liberties since 9/11, they are all but gone.  Therefore, in a round about way, supporting Israel has destroyed our Civil Liberties here at home, and will only continue to do so, because when we go to war with Iran, or they go to war with us, it will just lead to more terrorist attacks here at home, which will undoubtedly just bring about further loss of our Civil Liberties here at home.

So thank you all who support America's unwavering support of Israel, and our interventionist policies, because I have no one other than you to blame for the lose of my Civil Liberties.  Thank you.

[leadpersuasion]

I agree with rah on about 98% of what he is saying.  [url=http://www.freesmileys.or

However, we (America) are not "with the program". America will not make these radical changes we (Constitutionalists) seek and so we need to focus on simpler tasks to handle. I believe if Ron gets the vote, he either won't be around very long or he won't get as much passed as he hopes. Our "security" is viewed differently by everyone and quite frankly, I don't think anyone has a clue whats going to happen if we do this or that. We could make all the right moves constitutionally and still be in a world of hurt.

Bottom line. There is doing things the right way, and then doing things the safe way. America, as well, as Israel, currently wants things done the safe way. We stopped our major war games with Israel this week due to Iran....ie FEAR. Fear dictates everything politically. Monetary policy is all about fear. I am a God fearing man, and I try to do what is right, even if there are painful consequences. Most of the world does the opposite.

I with you, rah......but man, you might as well be pissing in the wind.

[rah45]

Well, damn it, I have to talk about SOMETHING. 

[JohnyMac]

Check this out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_corsairs

We were involved with Moslem extremists in the early 1800's. Seems to be a reoccurring theme.

[rah45]

Check this out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_corsairs

We were involved with Moslem extremists in the early 1800's. Seems to be a reoccurring theme.

I know. I did say modern Muslims.    From what I remember, their was more of a pirating operation, and not much of a threat once Jefferson stood up to them.