You disprove your own argument. You try to make your argument by using quotes of the founders and then go on to say that what you are saying is right based upon what the Founders "didn't foresee".

In short, the quotes you provide do not reinforce your central premise: "America's Founders were opposed to intervention and pre-emptive wars."

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread

Straw Man. The founders didn't foresee that the larger body wouldn't protect their vision. They thought that their vision would be maintained if they kept the power out of the hands of one man.

In short, yes, they do. The Founders would have never supported today's foreign policy. And they certainly didn't favor losing liberty due to fighting a foreign enemy. They certainly would have never favored the Patriot Act and other such nonsense. They would have understood that the U.S. is being attacked for things the U.S. government has done overseas.

Why were hostages taken in the U.S. embassy in Iran in the 70's? It wasn't because they "hated us for our wealth and freedom" and just decided to attack the U.S. embassy one day.

It was because in Iran, in 1953, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected leader so that British Petroleum could maintain rights to the oil. The oil nationalization bill passed unanimously in the Iranian Parliament. I don't believe in socialist policies - however - that was what their democracy decided. The Shah - the U.S. puppet - had a secret police force that made several people "disappear." And that was the spark that caused the Iranian hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy. Not because they just woke up one day and decided to "hate us for our wealth and freedom."

The CIA's own report, which you can see in the documentary "Why We Fight," stated that the United States should expect "blowback" - meaning violent retaliation - for its role in the coup.

....

The U.S. has been sticking its nose in the Middle East for quite some time. It's actions have led to the imprisonment, torture and/or death of innocent people there. And that leads their surviving friends and family to seek revenge.

There's more evidence for that:

"Now Stephen Halbrook, an attorney and well-known Second Amendment expert (he's the author of 1984's That Every Man Be Armed), has taken a much-needed look at the Swiss wartime record in a new book titled "Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II." The book not only provides a starting point for all future discussions of Switzerland's military role in the war, but also makes an interesting contribution to the literature on both federalism and gun rights; according to Halbrook, Switzerland's traditions of extreme decentralization and of a well-armed populace played a key role in preserving its freedom in an hour of peril.

As Halbrook reminds us, the American Founders often cited Switzerland as an example of the kind of nation they hoped to build on these shores. They admired its survival for centuries as a democracy amid tyrannies of every kind, following its birth in 1291 as the result of a peasant revolt in the remote fastnesses of the Alps."

Rest of Article Here

"America’s Founding Fathers recognized that standing armies were dangerous to liberty because such armies oppressed the population domestically and engaged in wars of imperialist aggression. That is why the United States originally followed the Swiss model of republicanism, a militia army, and neutrality. America’s founders wished to avoid "entangling alliances" in Europe, and the US entered World Wars I and II reluctantly.

A militia army includes virtually all able-bodied males under arms in a country, and thus challenges any invader with unending guerilla warfare. A standing army consists of professional soldiers forming a small proportion of a country’s population. Numerous standing armies in Europe collapsed before the onslaught of Hitler’s blitzkrieg – the governmental elites surrendered and ordered the soldiers to lay down their arms. An attack on Switzerland would have encountered no elite to surrender, and instead armed resistance at every turn.

The organization of the Swiss military as a militia meant that, while it could protect its country, it could not have invaded another country. This was the experience since medieval times. Armed Swiss commoners defeated the mightiest armies of invading knights at numerous battles – they left Charles the Bold in a ditch with his head crushed by a halberd at Nancy in 1477 – but were themselves defeated when they ventured into foreign lands, such as at Marignano in 1515.

The above is the key to Swiss neutrality. Militia armies are good at defending their own countries, but are no good at attacking other countries, and thus avoid foreign wars. Both militia defense and neutrality thus promote the ideals of peace.

Link

Proof that the Founders did indeed want a national militia composed of the people and not standing armies:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country" - James Madison, Annals of Congress

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty . . . Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Mason

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Senator Richard Henry Lee

"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." - James Madison

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton

OK, your argument is a strawman. Your argument is so weak and illogical that it's as easy to beat as a strawman. Thus far, your quotes from the Founders have not demonstrated your central premise, and you undermine your own argument by criticizing the founders because they "didn't forsee that the larger body wouldn't protect their vision" while at the same time trying to use their words to support the vision you have been advocating here. You use the Founders for what you're promoting here and then quietly undercut them by saying how they lacked vision.

Since you are resorting to insults about how people who do not acknowledge this are dishonest, I will not reply to this section. You have been given a warning in private messages about implied insults.


WEB

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread

The quotes you provided earlier in this thread, did not prove your point as I showed and neither do your quotes here.

Now you're saying that the founders only favored militias when in the Consitution it establishes an Army:

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
So what you're saying is that the Founders despised the concept of a standing army so much that they created one in the Constitution?

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread

THEN DO IT. Saying it is and proving it is are two different things.


Yes, they have.

Again, this is a Straw Man. The "lack of foresight" speaks to one element of protecting the issue - not the issue itself.

Your claim is that by saying I believed they "lacked foresight in such-and-such" - this can then be applied to everything they said regardless of context. That is not a logical argument by any stretch of the imagination. That is a clear Fallacy of Composition.


I see no logical reason why anyone would take such a statement as an insult. It was not implied insult. I'm just letting you know that. However, I doubt you'll retract the warning.

This is false. You have shown only fallacies.


It's a little more complicated than that. What I'm saying is this:

"The fundamental constitutional institution for "homeland security" is not even the Army or Navy. America's Founding Fathers profoundly distrusted standing armed forces under the control of any government as potential enemies of liberty, not least of all because of their own experiences with the British Army's attempts to suppress freedom in the Colonies and independent States. So, in the Constitution, the Founders refused to adopt any preexisting army or navy, or to create new ones, as permanent establishments for the United States.

True, the Constitution delegates to Congress the powers "[t]o raise and support Armies" and "[t]o provide and maintain a Navy". Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13. And with such powers comes a duty to exercise them, when necessary and proper. Compare United States v. Marigold, 50 U.S. (9 Howard) 560, 567 (1850), with Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. Otherwise, though, Congress need never "raise and support", and need not continuously "provide and maintain", an army or a navy. Furthermore, the Constitution requires that, even when Congress does "raise" an army, "no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years". Article I, Section 8, Clause 12. This enables the House of Representatives--the House of Congress electorally closest to the people and (in political theory, at least) most chary of their lives, liberties, and property--to prevent an army from continuing in existence when it serves no purpose that justifies its expense, or when it threatens Americans' freedoms.

In addition, the Constitution provides that "[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress, * * * keep Troops, or Ships of War, in time of Peace". Article I, Section 10, Clause 3. So, nowhere in the federal system does the supreme law of the land treat an army or navy as an inevitable, indispensable, permanent, or perpetual institution.

Where, then, should Americans look for constitutional "homeland security"? The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides the first giant steps towards the answer:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

By definition, "the security of a free State" is "homeland security" (the "homeland" being, not simply a geographical area, but a special political conception rooted in freedom). The Amendment describes "[a] well regulated Militia" as "necessary" (not simply useful) for such "security". And the Amendment singles out "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" as so important to the existence of such a "Militia" that "the right * * * shall not be infringed". Therefore, the fundamental constitutional institution of "homeland security" must be "[a] well regulated Militia" based upon "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

Perhaps more importantly, the body of the Constitution itself is not silent on this matter, either. To be sure, the Constitution does not create any "well regulated Militia". It delegates no power to Congress to "raise and support" (as with an army), to "provide and maintain" (as with a navy), or in any other words to fashion from whole cloth any "well regulated Militia". And it does not even define what constitutes such a Militia. That is because it did not have to: In the late 1700s, every adult American knew that "well regulated Militia" had existed in the Colonies and independent States from the mid-1600s, and were established in every State of the Union even as the Constitution was being drafted and ratified. For that reason, the Constitution simply acknowledged "the Militia of the several States" as already in existence, adopted and incorporated them according to the historical legal principles by which they had long and even then operated, and thereby perpetuated them in that form. See Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16; and Article II, Section 2, Clause 1.

Rest of Article Here

I've already done it, that why you keep changing arguments. First you argued with general phrases from the Founders, then you switched to statements they made about the Congress, then you switched to statements about the militia. Aside from the fact that anyone can see how I refuted your statements, we also see your constantly changing your argument everytime I refute your statements.

That's the whole problem, you haven't shown any proof to justify your stance on the issue. Your only proof of your stance is actually a criticism of the Founds by saying they have a "lack of foresight". Your justification for your interpretation of the Founders words is actually a refutation on the Founders themselves. All you've done is refute them, not advance your interpretation of their words.

I'm saying first and foremost that you've shown lots of nice quotes, the only problem with those quotes is that none of them backup your central premise: "America's Founders were opposed to intervention and pre-emptive wars. ". Your statement of criticism of the wisdom of the founders is a clear contradiction to what you are saying is the infallible wisdom of the founders.

Well it's your problem if you can't see why that's insulting. Your comment was an implied insult and thus the warning will be maintained not retracted.

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread

Well I've shown the fallacies in what you've said here, that's why you haven't bothered to argue against what I've said. You keep changing your argument.

You have provided ONE and only ONE solid support for your argument. Here:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12
That's a fine argument, however one could also argue that the Founders provided an escape from that clause with Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 18:

A standing army is "necessary" to "provide for the common defence".

So you could argue that the Founders were generally opposed to a standing army, but also that they were open to the possibility that the Constitution not be so rigid that it became impractical for real life.

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread

I gotta chime in here... That actually that looks like a fine fact which pretty much kills your argument. Truth-Bringer has you on this one.

Not so, because your opinion/interpretation has absolutely no support from facts or evidence, as T-B keeps trying to explain to you. Please provide any quote or any writing from any Founder that states they believe "a standing army is necessary to provide for the common defense" and that it should remain permanent and replace the state militias.

There's no argument there. The Founders were opposed to a standing army, and that is a rock solid fact. Their quotes and writings clearly support this. If you have any quotes or writings to the contrary, please post them. An opinion isn't proof of anything.


They did not believe in a "living" Constitution as the modern judiciary interprets it. They believed that changes should be made possible, but not that such changes could ever reverse or destroy the original intent. The only original intent that could rationally be altered would be errors which deprived people of life, liberty or unalienable rights - such as slavery. Any changes argued from the standpoint of extending unalienable rights under Natural Law to those who may have been deprived of such when the Constitution was originally ratified, would be supported from the Founders core beliefs.