Avoiding a “Morally Vacuous and Historically Ignorant” Foreign Policy

Ran across a useful and interesting argument between the generally conservative and generally libertarian views of our foreign policy – especially as it relates to war and the use of force in general.  Here is Noah Rothman arguing against the essentially libertarian idea of non-intervention (using Syria as an example of why we should, at times, intervene), and here is the retort by Nick Gillespie forcefully arguing the libertarian viewpoint.  Both articles repay reading – but my view is that both of them got it wrong, to a certain extent.

Do you want an example of a nation following the libertarian ideal in foreign policy?  I present to you the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  That Empire – the remnant of what was once the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne – was at peace continually from 1866 until 1914.  While every major – and a large number of minor – powers were engaged in war at various times during that span, Austria-Hungary remained blissfully at peace and, indeed, did all it could to conciliate other powers and maintain the general peace.  Austria-Hungary was also the least militarist of the European Great Powers – spending less on armaments than Germany, Russia, Britain and France.  Austria took no part in the European scramble for colonies in Africa, fell for no “white man’s burden” nonsense, did not become jingoist.  And how did the world repay this extended period of not fighting, not building up a massive military-industrial complex and not rocking the global boat?  Well, Austria-Hungary was attacked, out of the blue, and thus got in to war in 1914…and because she lost the war, the entire country was dismantled.  So much for the benefits of taking the libertarian approach to foreign policy.

On the other hand, there is the interventionist policy – these days closely identified with so-called “neocons”, but really just a type of policy which has been advocated by people of widely divergent political views ever since the end of the Second World War.  Rothman neatly summed it up in his article:

…it is incumbent on the United States to maintain the stewardship of a global order which has resulted in relative peace and stability since the end of the Cold War…

Relative peace and stability?  Really?  We’ve had wars and massacres and civil wars and genocides aplenty since the end of the Cold War – if this is peace and stability then give me some war and instability – it’d be easier, and probably less bloody.  The global order we’ve maintained really since the Second World War hasn’t even ensured that Europe and the United States have remained untouched by war – though, of course, the United States and Europe have gotten off far more lightly than Africa, Asia and South America.

In sum, both the interventionist and the libertarian ideals about American foreign policy and war making are “morally vacuous and historically ignorant”.  Neither actually work – because neither take the world as it is and neither tailor the American response to the situation as it arises.  To have a foreign policy which is morally defensible and in tune with historic reality is going to require a rather large shift in view points.  The most important element of it will have to be a determination to discover where right and wrong lay in each foreign policy issue and seek as far as possibly to bend American foreign policy towards whomever is most right in a dispute.

To take just two examples – we are ignoring history when we try to deal with Islamism as if it is some aberrant feature of Islam.  While not all Muslims are prepared to blow themselves up in a terrorist attack, a great deal of Muslim theology gears quite a few Muslims to so prepare.  By ignoring those aspects of Muslim history which actually render blowing up non-combatants explicable we are hamstringing our ability to actually approach the Muslim world on the level and work out ways and means to deal with those elements of Islam which are bloody minded.  We are ignoring who is right and who is wrong when we, say, insist that in the recent dispute between China and Japan over some small islands that they work it out peacefully – China is being aggressive and is in the wrong, and we should say so and make it clear that any Chinese attempt to upset the status quo by military means will result in our going to war…not because the islands are important, but because the principal of no Power being able to arbitrarily change the status quo is crucial to any rational functioning of the world.

What we have in our policy right now is just a muddle – and a muddle which can lead to World War Three as those around the world who are bent on evil perceive (incorrectly) that the United States lacks the will and the grit to see a terrible thing through to the end.  We are not speaking with a clear voice.  Heck, we’re not even speaking with an intelligible voice…what is China to make of us when they actually threaten military action against our ally Japan and we don’t immediately bristle with aggressive intent towards China?  What are our Islamists enemies to think of us when we say out of one corner of our mouth that we oppose Islamist extremism, but then go about helping to midwife Muslim extremism in places like Egypt and Libya?  We’re not being clear, and so our various enemies are acting based upon a false presumption about who and what we are…and people working on false assumptions about the United States often wind up at war with the United States (see Germany, Japan, eg).

I would have us recast our entire foreign policy – ditch those elements such as the UN and NATO which were cobbled together with a mind towards keeping Germany down (the UN) or keeping Russia out of Germany (NATO).  Whatever purpose they might have served, the purpose is over with.  I think this, actually, is what Washington may have meant by “entangling alliances”…not that alliances, per se, are bad but that to keep up an alliance which merely keeps us on the hook for the follies of others should be avoided like the plague.  No more interventions if, by this, it is meant that we will apply military power without a declaration of war – if we are to war, make it official, legal and something which can only end with a peace treaty.  If we war, also, it is war to the finish – we identify why we’re fighting and we don’t leave off fighting until the enemy agrees to do as we wish in the matter of contention (this does not mean, by the way, that we have to level a nation as we did to Germany and Japan during World War Two – but it does mean that we don’t make a peace agreement before the enemy has agreed to do what we want…now, if the enemy wants to keep fighting long after he’s actually defeated – as the Germans, especially, did in World War Two – then the additional destruction to be visited upon the enemy will really be his own fault).

There aren’t too many nations I’d actually have us in military alliance with these days – and those alliances would be predicated upon joint military planning against the possible aggressor, with each contracting party having rigidly defined amounts of military contribution to the collective effort (Israel, Japan, South Korea, Philippines – I’d make alliance with Vietnam and India, as well…everyone else can shift for themselves for the moment).  And for any nation allied with, the alliance would end if the potential threat ended (so, if ever the Muslim world would cease looking for the massacre of the Jews of Israel, there would no longer be a need for military cooperation between the United States and Israel; so, too, with China – if it could start to be relied upon that China was plotting no aggressive moves, then maintaining alliance with, say, South Korea would no longer be necessary).  We have to maintain at least some freedom of movement – proposing, as we do these days, to defend all of Europe, all of the Middle East, all of Asia is just absurd…we can’t do it all and, also, it isn’t necessary for us to do it all.

Be neither isolationist nor interventionist – look at each global situation as it arises and think about what is best for the United States.  If intervention looks necessary, then make military alliance with any other nation which shares our basic view of the problem, and then oppose whomever is causing the trouble, even to declaring war and compelling the enemy to do our bidding.  If no vital, United States interests are at stake, then stay out of it.  Whatever we do, don’t get locked in to any sort of “system” of foreign policy – the world is run by people and people don’t keep themselves neatly within a system.  They do bizarre, strange things – and our reaction has to be tailored to each thing; don’t be asinine and try to make the things happening fit a pre-conceived notion of how the world should be working.

45 thoughts on “Avoiding a “Morally Vacuous and Historically Ignorant” Foreign Policy

  1. Jeremiah March 22, 2013 / 3:25 am

    I agree, Mark.

    Nations should respect the United States. Japan and Germany; they know. And I’m afraid that those other nations (China, Iran, North Korea, etc) won’t respect America until they’ve felt the wrath of our Devil Dogs, Airmen, and Sailors.

    • neocon01 March 22, 2013 / 7:43 am

      bottom line, islam is an evil murderous cult hell bent on world domination…ignore it at one’s own peril.

  2. Gunboat Republican (@GunboatRepub) March 22, 2013 / 7:06 am

    “the world is run by people and people don’t keep themselves neatly within a system.”

    That’s the problem. Your analysis is basically Westphalian — you assume that there are a bunch of states, that the states go to war and make peace, and that, by and large, they should stick to their own affairs unless something extraordinary is going on.

    The problem with this is that the Westphalian system only ever really existed in Europe. It didn’t take hold in places like Africa and the Middle East, because most people in those areas wouldn’t have known what Westphalia was if they walked right into it. In these places, it is, as you say, all about people — militias, proxy groups, radical sects, and so on. It’s all well and good to want a declaration of war against the Taliban, but the Taliban doesn’t respect international borders, it sees itself as a religious group more than a government, and it functions more as a collection of criminal gangs than as a religious group. Suppose we were to negotiate a peace deal with Mullah Omar in which the border between the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan were to be the present boundaries of Helmand and Qandahar provinces. Do you really think he would care? If he were to order “his” soldiers in Nuristan or Swat to lay down their arms and retreat to the new “homeland”, do you think they would care? And do you think that, once the US military had withdrawn, that the Taliban would be content to just sit back and build high-rises in Qandahar until the sun goes out?

    • neocon01 March 22, 2013 / 7:46 am


      Westphalian sovereignty

      Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of the sovereignty of nation-states on their territory, with no role for external agents in domestic structures.

      Scholars of international relations have identified the modern, Western originated, international system of states, multinational corporations, and organizations, as having begun at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.[1]
      Both the basis and the conclusion of this view have been attacked by some revisionist academics and politicians, with revisionists questioning the significance of the Peace, and some commentators and politicians attacking the Westphalian system of sovereign nation-states.

    • neocon01 March 22, 2013 / 7:51 am


      the WAR is against the cult of islam, THEY have declared it.against the west and Christianity…shhhhhhh dont tell anybody, dontcha know they are a “religion” of pieces…er peace…


      • neocon01 March 22, 2013 / 8:58 am



        USATODAY: America less popular in Middle East now than under Bush administration…

        Obama urges Israelis to compromise for peace…

        ‘Most Palestinians hate Obama’…

        No love in Jordan, either…

        SNAFU 2: Marine One grounded…

    • M. Noonan March 22, 2013 / 10:31 am


      The problem we have of non-State actors waging war, however, stems from our unwillingness over the past 65 years to determine where right and wrong lays in international disputes. The terrorist groups we have today are the sons and grandsons of terrorist groups built up by the USSR to wage asymetrical warfare against us – and the USSR did this because they learned very early on in our confrontation with them that we simply would not take the logical, rational and moral step of holding them responsible for such actions. Had we gone to war – as we should have – with the USSR over Berlin in 1948 or Korea in 1950, the USSR never would have starting supporting terrorist activities…the nucleus of the global terrorist movement would never have been created.

      Of course, the USSR is now long gone – but each and every terrorist group in the world which poses anything like a threat (as opposed to posing a problem for the local police) has a State sponsor. Some times more than one (so, for instance, Hezbollah obtains its ability to operate from Iran and Syria). When confronting such groups as Hezbollah, al Qaeda and what have you, the key remains to determine where right and wrong lay – and the wrong resides in those nations which provide support for terrorism. As I’ve said for a long time now, on the morrow of 9/11 President Bush should have gone to Congress and asked for a declaration of war against Libya, Syria, Iraq and Iran – as they were, at that time, the primary State sponsors of terrorism in the world. We should have formed military alliances with any nation at the time interested in putting a stop to such activities and warred upon the offending powers until they accepted our compulsion for them to stop doing it…and once they did stop such sponsorship, then the terrorist groups, themselves, would have faded away…eventually to be no more than a few bandits in the hills.

      War must be war – not half war. Treaties must serve a specific purpose, or they must not be entered in to. No nation must ever be permitted to unilaterally alter an existing treaty without the consent of the contracting powers. Permanent, international organizations must be avoided like the plague.

  3. Cluster March 22, 2013 / 5:15 pm

    But there is no money to vaccinate the children:

    Biden’s One-Night Paris Hotel Tab: $585,000.50

  4. tiredoflibbs March 22, 2013 / 5:49 pm

    Another failure of the pResident obAMATEUR:

    America is less popular in the Middle East than under the Bush administration.


    Facts are facts.

    We also had the promise of “healing the planet”. The environmentalists are upset that obAMATEUR hasn’t done anything on that front either.

    It is one failure after the next. But the lemmings and mindless drones will continue to defend this SCOAMF (Miserable Failure) of a pResident and will be too cowardly to admit or criticize him.

    … and you know who you are.

    • mitchethekid March 23, 2013 / 8:25 pm

      And yet he received the highest award a civilian can get from Israel. The first time ever for a US president. What do you think about that?

      • Amazona March 24, 2013 / 10:57 am

        “What do you think about that?”

        I think if you actually believe that this indicates a genuine respect for Barack Obama by the nation of Israel, you probably also wear a “genuine” Rolex you bought off a street vendor for a buck three eighty, and are waiting for that big check from Nigeria.

        This gullibility does explain your being such a dupe of the Left, though.

  5. Cluster March 22, 2013 / 7:40 pm

    I was driving home today and heard on the news that the FAA will have to close some towers as a result of having to cut back on spending nearly $600 million. In the very next story, a sound clip of Obama was played wherein he was pledging $200 million to help Syrian refugees.

    UN F**KING BELIEVABLE. So we don’t have money to keep some towers open, or to have tours of the White House, BUT we do have the money to help Syrian refugees.

    Are we there yet?

    • tiredoflibbs March 22, 2013 / 8:45 pm

      Cluster, not to mention arming the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

      • Cluster March 22, 2013 / 10:17 pm

        It’s a surreal liberal reality we are currently living thru. I hope we make it.

    • M. Noonan March 23, 2013 / 12:16 am

      In the PR battle, I think this has all rather backfired on Obama – it is absurd for Obama to say “we’re all gonna die!!!!” due to the sequester and then he goes and spends bags of money on things other than keeping Americans alive.

      • Retired Spook March 23, 2013 / 10:44 am

        and then he goes and spends bags of money on things other than keeping Americans alive.

        And in a perfect world, an objective, unbiased press would hold his feet to the fire for such hypocrisy. Sadly that’s not the current reality. Sooner or later, however, reality is going to catch up, and it’s going to get to a point where the media will not be able to avoid reporting the truth.

      • neocon01 March 23, 2013 / 11:24 am

        al ubama could care less about the country who’s mainland he never set foot on until he was 20yo.
        he is the reason WHY we **did not** allow foreigners to become potus.

      • neocon01 March 23, 2013 / 11:41 am

        Avoiding a “Morally Vacuous and Historically Ignorant” Foreign Policy


        with al Ubama, the hildabeast and lyrch the traitor in charge? what else could it be? amateurs/traitors R US

      • neocon01 March 23, 2013 / 11:50 am

        if barry had a son…….

        Unthinkable Evil: Teen Intentionally Shoots Woman’s 13-Month-Old Baby in the Face During Robbery Attempt

        • “Do you want me to kill your baby?”
        • Police arrest two in connection with the shooting
        • Killer’s mugshot released by police

    • mitchethekid March 23, 2013 / 8:28 pm

      Trump offered to take up the slack re the tours. But his offer was rejected when he wanted to rename the White House White House by Trump and paint it gold. They didn’t care much for the red velvet either.

      • tiredoflibbs March 24, 2013 / 10:34 am

        mitchie, EVERYONE’S offer was rejected due to the simple FACT that obAMATEUR wants the political issue and blame the Republicans.

        “oh, these poor children can’t take White House tours because of the evil Republicans.” Thankfully, it backfired and common sense has prevailed in this issue.

        Not to mention the fear mongering coming from the White House about food inspection, drug testing, yada yada yada….

        We don’t have the money for White House tours or anything else that will give maximum political exposure in an attempt to blame the opposition (for obAMATEUR’s sequester idea). BUT NOW, we have the money for the PALESTINIANS!


        Too bad, obAMATEUR’s record on foreign relations is worse than Bush’s. We are less respected in the world today than when Bush was President.

        Don’t frett mitchie, we know that no matter what obAMATEUR does or doesn’t do, he can do no wrong in your eyes as well as in the eyes of your fellow mindless drones.


      • Amazona March 24, 2013 / 10:54 am

        tired, this silly little snot-nugget from mitche serves only to explain why he finds Bill Maher funny. This is evidently as funny as mitche is able to be, lame and clumsy as it is, but it does illustrate his shaky grasp of “humor”.

        When the bar is set that low, even a Maher can rise to it, every now and then.

  6. Amazona March 23, 2013 / 11:47 am

    This is a great thread post, Mark–insightful and well written, and I am going to keep it.

    You did say “…..those around the world who are bent on evil perceive (incorrectly) that the United States lacks the will and the grit to see a terrible thing through to the end.”

    I think that perception is quite correct. We do lack the will, and we do lack the grit.

    But, as you point out, part of that is because we are all muddled up. We do not have clearly understood and stated goals.

    While the sheeple on the Left glommed onto the catchphrase “exit strategy” as a basis of anti-Bush attacks, it is true that we should have had a more clearly and definitively stated goal in Iraq.

    Regime change? Going after A-Q? Reshaping the nation into a democratic republic? Simply removing oppression and then supporting the people as they chose their own path? It should never have been about how to get out, but about what would be the victory that said it was time to go home—-overthrowing Saddam, wiping out terrorist cells and training camps, ?????????

    I have no problem with the U.S. enforcing what I can only call a “Play Nice” policy—one that says “We don’t care what kind of government you want, but when we see human rights offenses such as genocide or tribal chiefs ripping off aid shipments we WILL step in.” I find a moral objection to having power and failing to use it to help other people.

    Yes, it is a fine line, sometimes, between use and abuse of power, and this will always be a question and a problem. But who could object to the use of our power to stop the slaughter and rape reign of terror imposed by the janjaweed? To intervene during the atrocities committed by the Hussein family in Iraq? To stop genocide or the interference in feeding the hungry?

    One objection would be that we would be putting our military in harm’s way. But as Mark pointed out, we need an active and ready military force, and as we have recently seen even domestic training of the military is dangerous. Here at Fort Carson there are many deaths and many more injuries every year in training incidents and accidents. I like the idea of our young men and women being sent abroad, to see how other cultures function and live, to experience the reality of life outside of Tulsa Oklahoma, to develop relationships with peoples very different from what they have experienced at home. These young people will not be in the military forever, and as they leave military service and take those memories and experiences with them into other stages of their lives I see only good coming from their exposure to people and cultures around the world. They will be our politicians, or the electors of our politicians, they will be forming our international policies, and the more they know from actual experience the better equipped they will be.

    So I like the idea of training them and then expanding on that training by having them use it to better the lives of people around the world. It’s fine to have our military there the day after a major earthquake or flood, to help the survivors, but I think they should also be there with guns and drones to stop incursions of murderers and rapists such as we have seen in Sudan, and to take out terrorist training camps and cells wherever they pop up.

    I had a good friend from Peru, who at the age of 12 was forced to leave his mountain village and move into Lima to live with an aunt because of the threats of Sindero Luminoso, the terrorist gang once (and now again) active there. A couple of years ago he told me they are back and growing stronger, and they come out of the jungle into villages and tell young boys they either join up or their families will be killed. I doubt that this tactic is unique to this particular group. We fail to understand the human rights violations of people when they are not protected from groups like this.

    • M. Noonan March 23, 2013 / 4:02 pm


      The most important thing for me is that the fighting doesn’t start until the war is declared. Some would assert that its impossible for us to declare war against a terrorist group – I assert that any terrorist group which can pose an actual threat to the United States must have one or more State sponsors and so we declare war upon the sponsor(s) and defeat the terrorist group by defeating the sponsor(s). If by some chance we are ever attacked by a non-State actor who genuinely has no connection to a State (really, I think this impossible, but just as an example) then we are dealing with what are de-facto pirates and we treat them accordingly – find their headquarters and exterminate them.

      We are muddled because we appear to not even want clarity. Think of the Arab-Israeli war – ongoing for 60+ years and no end in sight because we have essentially forbidden a conclusion and spend our time fooling around with a “peace process” which cannot ever bring real peace because for there to be peace there first has to be a decision in the war. The war must end before peace may be concluded – and war can only end when by military force the issue is resolved one way or the other. We can compel a finish to this war – either by cutting Israel off and allowing them to eventually be crushed by sheer weight of numbers, or my supporting the Israelis in bids to take Cairo, Damascus and Mecca. In either case, the war will end and a peace treaty will eventually be made…go on as we do and we’ll just have low-grade war indefinitely.

  7. Cluster March 23, 2013 / 9:54 pm

    I am not the blog police, and it’s not my job to call out those with poor taste. Otherwise I wouldn’t have time to do much else.

    That was a great post by Amazona. I too think our military should have more defined missions to lessen the bloodshed and should be used for protecting civil rights and exacting justice rather than nation building. We should go in and take out the junjaweed as we should have ended the merciless Saddam regime and did. I also think we should be much more pro active in taking out the murderous drug cartels south of our own border. Mexico is a complete mess and they need help.

  8. M. Noonan March 23, 2013 / 11:43 pm

    “If Barry had a son” is a racist remark?

    • mitchethekid March 23, 2013 / 11:52 pm


    • 01canadianobserver March 24, 2013 / 7:53 am

      If neocon would put his remaining grey cell to work and just look at how the President and the First Lady are bringing up their two daughters, he would be hard pressed to think a son would be brought up any differently. Of course, as we can plainly see, his extreme hatred for the President of the United States and leader of the free world and his family overrides any logical thought.

      • Amazona March 24, 2013 / 10:50 am

        Barack Obama, the President of the United States, made the comment, regarding a young stoner thug who attacked an armed man and got shot doing it, that the thug “could have been his own son”.

        He did this to throw fuel on the fire of the racial storm being stirred up by the race pimps, at a time when his (black) Attorney General was looking off into the distance and ignoring the New Black Panthers bounty on the head of the man who defended himself against said thug.

        Neo lives near the town where this racial hatred was being stirred up, and had a more personal reaction to it than you might have had, up in the Great White North. He was in the middle of the mess, and as a white man had good reason to fear that he would become a target of racial violence. So the callous effort by the President of the United States, Barack Obama, to feed this frenzy instead of trying to calm it down made quite an impression on him.

        If the President of the United States, Barack Obama, had not wanted to be thought of as someone who might have a son who is a thug and a drug user, he could have kept his pie hole shut. However, he made his choice, and now he has to live with it—-and that includes wondering if any OTHER young black thug would be identified as someone the President of the United States, Barack Obama, would like to defend as one who “could be his own son”.

        What the President of the United States, Barack Obama’s, effort to elevate a violent stoner thug in the minds of Americans by saying he could have been his own son and contributing to the racial hatred being concocted by the race pimps of his own race, has to do with how he rears his own daughters is something only you seem to understand.

        Or you just wanted to snarl at neo.


      • mitchethekid March 24, 2013 / 11:24 am

        You are not allowed to post the names, email addresses, etc of posters on this blog. I don’t know if the name you gave is correct but I do know your effort has gotten you kicked off. You have repeatedly made it clear you are not here to discuss politics but just to attack, smear and insult people. You have been repeatedly warned that this is not acceptable, and now you have pushed it too far. //Moderator

      • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 11:32 am

        bmitch the new forker


        FRESH …..from the fork site

        mitchethekid Says:
        20/03/2013 at 21:03

        Good for you Sarah! And thanks for being a B4V friend. Feel free to defend me any time you want. It will piss off most of the natives there; few as they are.
        I have been a regular poster there since it’s inception as a totem to GWB,

        but within the past few days I decided to take a different approach.

        I noticed that Cluster was saying things that seemed to be more reasonable so I did my best to befriend him. I think I have been successful. As you may have noticed, he and I have found some common ground on issues, who we respect as comedians and who we scoff at as representatives of reactionary conservatism. i.e $arah Payme.

        ******** Frankly, my ultimate goal is to have this Neo person shamed, humiliated and ultimately banned.******
        A few yrs ago I used to taunt him by calling him Rumplestiltskin but i don’t think he knew anything about that Fairy story.

        Amazona is another denizen whom I’d like to see a psychological profile on.

        The words she uses to negatively portray posters (such as us) and her obsession with spelling, syntax and etiology is quite revealing; IMO.
        Anyway, just thought I’d say hello and to thank you.

        BTW, I enjoy the nakedness here. I have always been a huge fan of the female figure.

      • Amazona March 24, 2013 / 12:16 pm

        neo, do you think part of mitche’s appreciation for what he calls “the female figure” has anything to do with the fact that most if not all of the “female figures” at the pitchfork happen to have peenies?

        But whatcha gonna do when the “men” have hoo-haws?

        It seems that mitche’s lack of mental clarity extends to a lack of clarity regarding gender—which does make him a perfect match for the forker contingent.

        I also love the effort to distract from his semi-literacy by claiming that noticing it is proof of an “obsession”. Too bad his “teachers” were not more “obsessed”—or that he didn’t have the intellect to process what they tried to teach him.

        Poor mitche—-he came to a battle of wits unarmed and now all he can do is flail around. So lucky for him he found some kindred spirits who share at least some of (and who knows just how much??) of his confusion and ignorance.

      • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 12:20 pm


        LOL well said……

      • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 12:34 pm

        And how did the world repay this extended period of not fighting, not building up a massive military-industrial complex and not rocking the global boat? Well, Austria-Hungary was attacked, out of the blue, and thus got in to war in 1914…and because she lost the war, the entire country was dismantled. So much for the benefits of taking the libertarian approach to foreign policy.

        War is a terrible horrible thing, However there is much evil and evil people in this world. Just like we need police forces to protect us from some of our own citizens we need a strong military to protect us from these evil forces.
        Hiding from reality does not alter the reality.

      • tiredoflibbs March 24, 2013 / 4:13 pm

        Ama, ROTFLMAO,!!!!!!! Too funny!

      • Cluster March 24, 2013 / 11:41 am


        Should all liberals be defined by what Al Sharpton says?

      • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 11:45 am

        so now Bmitch puts (what he thinks is) other posters names in his cess pool he calls posts?

        maybe we can post his name and address as well.

      • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 11:49 am


        they were obamys words, I merely repeated them….seems their heroes own words are too much for them to bear……maybe too much porn at the fork has ole bmitchie all worked up………

      • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 11:55 am

        the marxist muslim usurper in the white hut…….is there any question about this cretins loyalty?

        WHAT SEQUESTER? US quietly unblocks $500 million for Palestinians…

      • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 11:35 am

        Ama you are 100% correct……..let the POS eat his own words..

        Kanuck he also said to bring a gun to a fight…seems the good peeps of chi cago took him for his word again…..DAILY!!
        remember this was his town, district and he was its community agitator….looks like he did his job well.

      • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 12:00 pm

        Newark …One Killed, Two Wounded In Newark IHOP Restaurant Shooting

        chicago…Man shot in head over double-parked car

    • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 11:42 am


      No but the alinskyite agent provocateurs will hurl any accusation hoping the crap will stick.

  9. GMB March 24, 2013 / 10:09 am

    Come on now, fess? up. Which one of you bloggers/mods owns the vacuum boy. No one else could post as much garbage and lies without being instantly deleted as bomberboy does.

    barky is the leader of the free world? Shovel ready lolzer there.

    • Amazona March 24, 2013 / 11:15 am

      You don’t see the humor in letting mitche strut his ignorance on the blog? Sure, it’s not very nice, encouraging him to spout off, as he always ends up saying something that would embarrass someone with some personal dignity, but it does provide a peek (distasteful as it is) into what passes for the thought processes of a Liberal dupe.

    • neocon01 March 24, 2013 / 11:39 am


      the vacuum powered bomber boy is now in bed with the forkers….(maybe literally) he has now officially become a TROLL

Comments are closed.