Cider's ?safer? gun free home.

[iddee]

That absolutely has to be trolling. NOBODY could possibly blame Bush for that one. Democrat congress OK'ed the invasion and Bush set up a democracy there. Them O'bummer removed all support and handed the country to ISIS. NO. Ace, I happen to know you are WAY too smart to believe that.

[BeeMaster2]

That absolutely has to be trolling. NOBODY could possibly blame Bush for that one. Democrat congress OK'ed the invasion and Bush set up a democracy there. Them O'bummer removed all support and handed the country to ISIS. NO. Ace, I happen to know you are WAY too smart to believe that.

Same here.
Jim Altmiller

[Ben Framed]

create another ISIS or such, as the last one did.

If anyone created an ISIS it would be Bush.  How quickly we forget.  We the US attacked a foreign country and over through its leader, unprovoked.  No war crimes trials were ever initiated.  Amazing how that happened.  Now just suppose the US was a tiny country and China came over and obliterated our capital and replaced our leader.  What sort of underground organizing do you think would occur to get back at China?

I will give you this Ace. the guards who were in charge of guarding Saddam Hussein,  after his capture, pending his trial, said that they had conversations with him and were quoted as saying, Saddam said Ronald Regan was a good man and admired Mr Regan. Bush the father was no good. Bush the son was no good. 

[Michael Bush]

>Walley, think of it like alcohol.

Back when I was a kid they used to say that the difference between Tennessee (where liquor was legal) and Mississippi (which at the time was dry) was that you could buy liquor (illegally of course) on Sunday in Mississippi.

They did not go to Tennessee where it was legal

[Acebird]

Bush the father was no good. Bush the son was no good.

I just saw a program today where Clinton and Bush the son were buddy buddy.  Both agreed that the country is polarized and it is hurting the country.

[Ben Framed]

Bush the father was no good. Bush the son was no good.

I just saw a program today where Clinton and Bush the son were buddy buddy.  Both agreed that the country is polarized and it is hurting the country.

Yea, these Bushes and Clintons (at least Bill) have been chummy for quite some time. A lot of it is explained in Roger Stones book, The Clinton Crime Family. One of the reasons the left is trying to shut Roger down. I agree that the country has been polarized, and I would venture that Mr Trump would agree also?  At least President Trump, is doing something about it. 

[Kathyp]

If anyone created an ISIS it would be Bush.  How quickly we forget.  We the US attacked a foreign country and over through its leader, unprovoked.  No war crimes trials were ever initiated.

Yes how quickly we forget.  You can argue whether or not doing Iraq and Afganistan at the same time was a good idea.  You can argue the technique.  What you can't make, is your argument. 

Gulf 1 ended in a cease fire and Saddam agreed to certain things.  He never kept up his end of the agreement, he attacked his own people, and he sponsored terrorism.  Clinton tried to tamp him down with a couple of attacks because of his WMD, and he did the no fly zone.  What he should have done is bomb the living crap out of Saddams properties and labs, but he didn't have the balls to do that, just as he didn't have the balls to take out UBL. 

As a matter of geography, Iraq was a better place to invade than Afghanistan.  Unfortunately, we didn't execute or follow on well.  ISIS came out of Syria and it was gun-running to the rebels (ISIS) that was the reason no one in the Obama admin wanted to save the folks in Lybia.  Obama and Clinton female, made a mess of Syria, Lybia, and Iraq and gave ISIS the room to expand and set up territory. 

[Acebird]

We don't own Iraq, Afganistan or Iceland.  We are not the police of the world except certain leaders think we are.

[Ben Framed]

We don't own Iraq, Afganistan or Iceland.  We are not the police of the world except certain leaders think we are.

For U.S. foreign policy, it?s time to look again at the founding fathers? ?Great Rule?
George Washington
Douglas Martenson applies a patina to a bronze statue of George Washington near the Philadelphia Museum of Art on May 25.(Matt Rourke / Associated Press)
BY ELIZABETH COBBS
JULY 4, 2016
4:51 AM
LinkedIn
Email
People who don?t get heard have a tendency to shout. Eventually they get mad. For too long, foreign policy experts have stuck their fingers in their ears when confronted by citizens ambivalent about playing global police officer.

Republican Donald Trump is channeling their voices through his electric bullhorn, whipping up the crowd and questioning the validity of institutions like NATO. Regardless of whether one likes the messenger, it?s time to listen as we honor the nation?s 240th birthday.

Trump is right when he claims that a policy that looks out for ?America first? is based on a ?timeless principle.? When George Washington penned his famous Farewell Address of 1796, he asked his Revolutionary War comrade Alexander Hamilton to edit the speech. Hamilton crystallized the president?s sentiment against foreign entanglements ? then shared by most ? into the ?Great Rule.?

?Interweaving our destiny? with others, Washington and Hamilton argued, would ?entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice.? America should therefore pursue economic integration with the world, but maintain strict neutrality in its feuds.

John Quincy Adams reiterated this principle on July 4, 1821, when he reminded Congress that America ?goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.?

At the start of the Cold War, President Harry Truman proposed a new great rule to replace the old. Like Washington, Truman had public opinion behind him. Following a vigorous debate, the U.S. Congress accepted Truman?s contention that it was imperative ?to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.?

Citizens agreed that it was the United States? job to defend the so-called Free World ? alone, if necessary. Anything less was deemed un-American. Decision-makers stoked this sentiment to forestall isolationism. They encouraged Manichean thinking to ?scare the hell out of the American people,? as Sen. Arthur Vandenberg put it.

[iddee]

"We don't own Iraq, Afganistan or Iceland."
We have paid them enough in foreign aid to buy them several times. If we don't own them, we should at least have a say in how""our"" money is spent.

[Kathyp]

We don't own Iraq, Afganistan or Iceland.  We are not the police of the world except certain leaders think we are.

You are correct, but we didn't own France, England, or Germany.  We tried staying out of that and how'd that work out for us?  We didn't own Japan or China and we tried staying out of that.  How'd that work out?  Because we did not interfere in Afganistan and what was going on, we got attacked.  Didn't work out to well...

We didn't own Tripoli.  We don't own lots of things and we can try ignoring it all yet again and hope for a different outcome.  Guess we can see how that works out.

I do think we get involved in things we should not.  There was no reason to get into gun-running to Syria, or taking out Gaddafi.  Once into Iraq and having it more or less stable, there was no reason to pull out and turn it over to Iran and ISIS. 

We should pick our fights carefully, and then win them decisively.  That is why I make a distinction between the decision to do a thing and the execution.  We have not executed well for a long time and it is simply because we are afraid to kill "innocent" people.  If that fear means we can't do the job, we should not take the job. 

[Ben Framed]

?You are correct, but we didn't own France, England, or Germany.  We tried staying out of that and how'd that work out for us??

No but one of our bankers here in America, Prescott Bush, was a NAZI sympathizer  and helped finance the NAZI war machine. George?s daddy. How did that work out? Just another reason our founding fathers warned us about becoming involved in foreign entanglements. 

?We didn't own Japan or China and we tried staying out of that.  How'd that work out??

No? We was up to ore eyeballs in China, we secretly had  ?Advisers? right in the middle of that. Along with England, which  up until a point,  had control of Parts of China including Taiwan.
When we cut off Japan?s oil supply, war was Inevitable.  Cut off our oil supply and see what happens. President Roosevelts? speech saying Japan attacked Pearl Harbor unprovoked, was not exactly true. Just another reason our founding fathers warned us,about  becoming involved in foreign entanglements. 

?Because we did not interfere in Afganistan and what was going on, we got attacked.  Didn't work out to well...  ?

Are you sure Afghanistan was behind the attack? Most of the hijackers were Saudis. And Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi.  But Afghanistan  was and is, home of the Poppy fields, where the biggest majority of heroine is coming from even TODAY. and what is Prescott Bushs son George Herbert Walker Bush nickname? Poppy of corse.    Hum
Just another reason our founding fathers warned us, and advised us, to select good moral leadership, and shy away from becoming involved in foreign entanglements.

[Hops Brewster]

What really bothers me is that the gun grabbers think nothing of taking away the personal property and civil rights of thousands law abiding citizens just to keep a gun away from just 1 scum bag or wacko.  What's the ratio of good guy to bad guy.. 2000:1?  Greater?
All the talk the leftists spew about civil rights, it's only a smoke screen to take rights away from those who are willing to actually stand for their own rights. 

[Ben Framed]

What really bothers me is that the gun grabbers think nothing of taking away the personal property and civil rights of thousands law abiding citizens just to keep a gun away from just 1 scum bag or wacko.  What's the ratio of good guy to bad guy.. 2000:1?  Greater?
All the talk the leftists spew about civil rights, it's only a smoke screen to take rights away from those who are willing to actually stand for their own rights. 

You are right Hops, it is just a smoke screen. Could it be the left has a bigger purpose in mind?;   You Bet!!  Instead of placing the blame where it belongs, to the shooters, they want to blame you, me, and every other honest, hardworking, freeborn America citizen, and place the blame at our feet, for the bad things that this person would do. No different from the liberal thinking teachers in schools today. For example, When one kid in class will do something wrong and disrupt the whole class, instead of the teacher snatching that kid up, taking him and the board of education to the hall way and introducing him to the board of education,  (Paddling),  these teachers would rather blame the whole class and punish the whole class for what one kid will do. Usually missing recess. When a good ass whipping will quickly and effectively take care of the problem. Along with a lesson learned by the other students of why not to disrupt the class. PS The disruptive child had his punishment, let him go out side and play also.
😁
Shame. On this modern, backward way thinking! Has the world lost all common scene, have we lost our way?

[Kathyp]

No but one of our bankers here in America, Prescott Bush, was a NAZI sympathizer  and helped finance the NAZI war machine. George?s daddy. How did that work out? Just another reason our founding fathers warned us about becoming involved in foreign entanglements.

You are correct.  There were various reasons for that support.  For most, it was because they saw it as a choice against Communism.  The idea was already spreading in this country and was certainly a threat to their business and lifestyle.  For others, like Henry Ford, it was an ideological melding.  He was quite the Jew-hater. 

Thomas Jefferson was one who did not want foreign entanglements, but he had to put that aside when our interests were attacked and the Europeans were unwilling to act. 

No? We was up to ore eyeballs in China, we secretly had  ?Advisers? right in the middle of that. Along with England, which  up until a point,  had control of Parts of China including Taiwan.
When we cut off Japan?s oil supply, war was Inevitable.  Cut off our oil supply and see what happens. President Roosevelts? speech saying Japan attacked Pearl Harbor unprovoked, was not exactly true. Just another reason our founding fathers warned us,about  becoming involved in foreign entanglements.

Correct again, but sanctions are something we still use as a way to impact a country without going to war.  Japan was allied with Germany and the reason for that can be found win Willson and his behavior post WW1.  We had investments in China and had a desire to protect those without going to war.  We were also helping the Europeans in the hope we would not become entangled in that war. 

It is also worth noting that the laws about supplying countries and investing in them were different then.  For better or worse, the government has since stepped in and regulated much of what was not regulated at the time. 

Are you sure Afghanistan was behind the attack?

They were not and no one ever said they were.  They gave safe haven to UBL and his bunch.  They were given a choice to expel AQ and not be attacked.  They did not choose well. 
This goes back to action and execution.  If we had gone in jets screaming and done the job in one swoop, there would have been no reason to hang out there.  There is not now a reason to hang out there.  It should have been a one and done.

We have business interestest all over the world.  Far more now than when TJ had to go after the Muslim pirates.  Those interests require a measure of protection.  That protection comes in the form of diplomacy, intel, and hopefully as a last resort, our military.  In spite of founders intentions, isolationism was never an option. 

[Ben Framed]

No but one of our bankers here in America, Prescott Bush, was a NAZI sympathizer  and helped finance the NAZI war machine. George?s daddy. How did that work out? Just another reason our founding fathers warned us about becoming involved in foreign entanglements.

You are correct.  There were various reasons for that support.  For most, it was because they saw it as a choice against Communism.  The idea was already spreading in this country and was certainly a threat to their business and lifestyle.  For others, like Henry Ford, it was an ideological melding.  He was quite the Jew-hater. 

Thomas Jefferson was one who did not want foreign entanglements, but he had to put that aside when our interests were attacked and the Europeans were unwilling to act. 

No? We was up to ore eyeballs in China, we secretly had  ?Advisers? right in the middle of that. Along with England, which  up until a point,  had control of Parts of China including Taiwan.
When we cut off Japan?s oil supply, war was Inevitable.  Cut off our oil supply and see what happens. President Roosevelts? speech saying Japan attacked Pearl Harbor unprovoked, was not exactly true. Just another reason our founding fathers warned us,about  becoming involved in foreign entanglements.

Correct again, but sanctions are something we still use as a way to impact a country without going to war.  Japan was allied with Germany and the reason for that can be found win Willson and his behavior post WW1.  We had investments in China and had a desire to protect those without going to war.  We were also helping the Europeans in the hope we would not become entangled in that war. 

It is also worth noting that the laws about supplying countries and investing in them were different then.  For better or worse, the government has since stepped in and regulated much of what was not regulated at the time. 

Are you sure Afghanistan was behind the attack?

They were not and no one ever said they were.  They gave safe haven to UBL and his bunch.  They were given a choice to expel AQ and not be attacked.  They did not choose well. 
This goes back to action and execution.  If we had gone in jets screaming and done the job in one swoop, there would have been no reason to hang out there.  There is not now a reason to hang out there.  It should have been a one and done.

We have business interestest all over the world.  Far more now than when TJ had to go after the Muslim pirates.  Those interests require a measure of protection.  That protection comes in the form of diplomacy, intel, and hopefully as a last resort, our military.  In spite of founders intentions, isolationism was never an option.

''We have business interests all over the world.''
Yes we do and that is a good thing, I am all for business any where we can do business. As long as it does not undermine the security and best interest of our own country. The problem in investing in other countries is, we do not control other countries, nor should we, and with most all other countries, we are not equally yoked in our thinking culture, habits, religion, or rules and regulations. If we want to do business in another country fine. But If things go sour there, we should not expect our your people to go to war because a private business deal goes sour abroad.  Before investing our money as private citizens and private business, we should weigh the risk before we invest abroad, take the responsibility of that investment on ourselves, and if it goes sour, oh well we loose our money. Maybe we should have invested here in the good ole USA in the first place. George Washingtons farewell speech was vivid and clear, especially on foreign entanglements. We should heed to the words of wisdom of the past. And not blame other, including foreign countries for our own bad business decisions.

  ''If we had gone in jets screaming and done the job in one swoop, there would have been no reason to hang out there.  There is not now a reason to hang out there.  It should have been a one and done.''

I agree Kathy,  It should have been a one and done. We had the strength to accomplish this. The cocaine trade was ruined by that time as Bush and Clintons ''Little Mena''  operation had been shut down by now and they no longer had the ''luxury'' of using  the Contras as an excuse to bring all that cocaine. Ask the question, who really started the communist deal in South America in the first place? Let me ask you, who was head of the CIA before he was vice-president?
Now we have a heroine epidemic.. And where does most of this heroine come from? Yes ma'am, Afghanistan, last I've heard.  I really hope Mr Trump is a good guy and trying to do the right thing. What do you think Kathy?

[Kathyp]

If we want to do business in another country fine. But If things go sour there, we should not expect our your people to go to war because a private business deal goes sour abroad.  Before investing our money as private citizens and private business, we should weigh the risk before we invest abroad, take the responsibility of that investment on ourselves, and if it goes sour, oh well we loose our money. Maybe we should have invested here in the good ole USA in the first place. George Washingtons farewell speech was vivid and clear, especially on foreign entanglements. We should heed to the words of wisdom of the past. And not blame other, including foreign countries for our own bad business decisions.

Well,  yes and no.  Yes, if you choose to make autos in a 3rd world country you should assume the risk, but

Take oil, as an example:  Before we were oil independent with our new tech, most oil was found in 3rd world countries or unstable countries.    Everyone needs oil.  Protecting the oil fields and the investments made by the 1st world oil countries was crucial to the survival of life as we know it.  It was not about protecting the companies, but about protecting everyone.

Shipping is the same.  Goods move by sea.  The shipping routes need to be protected.  This is why TJ found that he could not follow the good advice of GW.  The pirates gave him no choice. 

And I will repeat what I have said before which is that there can be no leadership vacuum.  Someone will step in and lead.  There are not many choices.  China, Russia, or the US.  OR some rogue country will do something like close a critical shipping lane, or blow up critical supplies and infrastructure (Iran) and we end up having to go in to fix something that we should have prevented in the first place. 

[Kathyp]

I agree Kathy,  It should have been a one and done. We had the strength to accomplish this. The cocaine trade was ruined by that time as Bush and Clintons ''Little Mena''  operation had been shut down by now and they no longer had the ''luxury'' of using  the Contras as an excuse to bring all that cocaine. Ask the question, who really started the communist deal in South America in the first place? Let me ask you, who was head of the CIA before he was vice-president?
Now we have a heroine epidemic.. And where does most of this heroine come from? Yes ma'am, Afghanistan, last I've heard.  I really hope Mr Trump is a good guy and trying to do the right thing. What do you think Kathy?

I think that there are things that are done in every admin that we might not like of we know about them.  As for drugs, people use drugs.  They will always use drugs and as long as they do someone will bring drugs to them. 
Drugs are a currency.  To that extent, it does not surprise me that we would use it as a currency in some places.  Right, wrong, good idea?  Most things are judged by outcome rather than the moral right or wrong of it.  History writes those stories.

[Ben Framed]

I agree Kathy,  It should have been a one and done. We had the strength to accomplish this. The cocaine trade was ruined by that time as Bush and Clintons ''Little Mena''  operation had been shut down by now and they no longer had the ''luxury'' of using  the Contras as an excuse to bring all that cocaine. Ask the question, who really started the communist deal in South America in the first place? Let me ask you, who was head of the CIA before he was vice-president?
Now we have a heroine epidemic.. And where does most of this heroine come from? Yes ma'am, Afghanistan, last I've heard.  I really hope Mr Trump is a good guy and trying to do the right thing. What do you think Kathy?

I think that there are things that are done in every admin that we might not like of we know about them.  As for drugs, people use drugs.  They will always use drugs and as long as they do someone will bring drugs to them. 
Drugs are a currency.  To that extent, it does not surprise me that we would use it as a currency in some places.  Right, wrong, good idea?  Most things are judged by outcome rather than the moral right or wrong of it.  History writes those stories.

Unfortunately you are right in that a certain segment or percent of people will use drugs. It becomes a pitiful state of affairs if our own government or some rogue segments in our government, become the dealer. Even so, our very own George Washington made a mint off of whisky, I suppose the drug of the day. And on top of that turned around later, and kicked the ladder down behind himself as he reached the roof.  This made many mad at the time. I don?t want to tell it wrong and will stop there. We are all human and fall short or the Glory of God. God is the real judge at least the one which counts, and will judge each of us accordingly. We all fall short in one way or another.  Thanks for you replies Kathy. I always enjoy reading your posts and thoughts... you are a gracious debater.
Phillip

[Kathyp]

Unfortunately you are right in that a certain segment or percent of people will use drugs. It becomes a pitiful state of affairs if our own government or some rogue segments in our government, become the dealer.

It's a Chicken and egg thing in all drug use.  I happen to think that the demand is there, or the sales can't happen.  There is a great deal of controversy about what we were doing and where.  There is no doubt the CIA did some drug running in other countries, but there is a lot of shadow about how much of that impacted the US.  At any rate,  it is a currency that we used all the way back to the 40s, so it's not new to our more recent history.

Personally, I'd get the government out of deeming certain drugs illegal and punish behaviors, not use.  We do that with alcohol and now pot.  Users are going to use.  Addicts are going to get drugs.  Drug use has had both a workforce use and religious use historically.  Mark Twain was impressed with the use of coca leaf as a workforce motivator.  He wanted to import it. 

Do drugs destroy lives?  Yes.  so does alcohol.  It is the behavior that is the issue.