Changing My Mind About Iran - And More On The USA

[John Kilduff]

Yes, the threat from Iran is real.

That doesn't mean Iran needs to be prevented from getting nukes. Another war in the Middle East would be a much more ruinously costly and messy idea. The Iraq War is destined to go on forever, because what the U.S. wants (Iraqis to get along with each other in a stable political system) the U.S. cannot provide. Only Iraqis can provide that, and they don't appear willing or ready to. And it doesn't appear that that will change anytime soon.

Get every American out of the Middle East. Screw it. Tell them we're never coming back, it's all theirs, and be well - and if they F with us it will be Lights Out from a very long distance away.

Get the USA back to a truly Constitutional basis, as Ron Paul would do. Renew our prosperity and private investment by massively cutting government and taxes. Stop giving free social services to illegal immigrants and watch them leave in droves.

Don't mess with the rest of the world. Wish them well but take care of ourselves. Trade with them and smile at them. Bring our overseas troops home from all over the world. Save trillions of dollars overseas and at home, and let the people keep that money and invest it instead.

This would be the path to a good future.

The path we are on now is not a path to a good future. It's not yet too late but it could be getting close. Wake up America, and get down to the basics of freedom and prosperity again. Get back to our Constitutional roots and get the government out of our lives. Shrink it and starve it financially so it can only be the lean mean rights-protecting-machine it was originally designed to be, along with a few other mundane duties as specifically described in the Constitution. Realize that the Welfare Clause doesn't mean government can do anything at all that might help the general welfare, but rather that anything it does must help the general welfare. It is a qualifying clause not a granting clause.

Realize too that the Commerce Clause has been ridiculously broadly interpreted into an absurd instrument granting nearly unlimited powers to the federal government. Fix that.

Stop looking to government to solve our personal problems and start solving them ourselves.

That's the answer. Sadly, I think America must suffer much more greatly before enough Americans come to realize it so that it will be put into practice.

The Neo-Cons are on the path right now to ensuring that much of that suffering will be forthcoming. The USA will NOT be able to transform the Middle East into what it would like it to be. Realize that and accept reality and move out and move on. The more we mess with the Middle East the worse it will get. The administration's doctrine that spreading democracy is essential to our security is absurd, and impossible to achieve anyway. Countries and cultures must want freedom and democracy and pay the price for it of their own volition, before it will work for them. And we mistake if we think, as Bush does, that everyone wants the same things as us. That just isn't so. They're doing what they want to do for the most part already. If the Shi'ites and the Sunnis keep fighting each other it's because they want to. Get out of their way; we can't really stop them anyway. They have to solve it for themselves.

Anyway, there's more than enough to do at home. Really and truly.

Take care and God bless, and thanks for reading.

[Kaj]

Good post. There's a saying about digging a hole........... Americans are well over their head and digging faster than ever, and wondering why we keep getting deeper.

[Taso]

Good post, I agree with all of it. But I would like to learn a little about part of what you were saying, probably the most important part.

[ QUOTE ]
Realize that the Welfare Clause doesn't mean government can do anything at all that might help the general welfare, but rather that anything it does must help the general welfare. It is a qualifying clause not a granting clause.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I understand, you are saying that the government can do what it is allowed to do by the Constitution, as long as it is in aid of the general welfare of the population. It cannot do something that is not allowed by the Constitution, just because it is in aid of the general welfare of the population.

Essentially, the government can only do what is provided for in the constitution; the basic defining principle of the constitution, it is a document that says what CAN be done, not what can't be done.

So what is currently being done for the general welfare of the population that is not provided for in the constitution?


Edit: Also, just to clarify, is the "Welfare Clause" Article I section 8?
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

?

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
So what is currently being done for the general welfare of the population that is not provided for in the constitution?


Edit: Also, just to clarify, is the "Welfare Clause" Article I section 8?
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"


[/ QUOTE ]

for starters:

Since the current system harms both the recipients and the financiers of that system, benefiting only the pandering overseers. The entire "welfare" system violates the clause.

[Taso]

Well...That's sort of "opinion". There's a few people in the country that disagree with you, we call them democrats.

[Copernicus]

Nice thoughts, but ultimately as utopian and unrealistic as AC. In particular elimination/reduction of welfare isnt going to happen, and

"Get every American out of the Middle East. Screw it. Tell them we're never coming back, it's all theirs, and be well - and if they F with us it will be Lights Out from a very long distance away."

we no longer have the will to turn the lights out and get the job done. Withdrawal from Iraq and not confronting Iran over their violations would be confirmation of that, not affirmation that we would ever consider stronger retaliation in the future.

[j555]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa699b23882.htm

The opinion of the founders who wrote the Constitution would disagree with the democrats. Go to that link and read some quotes from Madison regarding the general welfare clause. I think you'll find the similiar quotes from Madison regarding the interstate commerce clause. I'm not sure on this, but I think these two clauses started being severely abused and interpreted differently during FDR's new deal. He threatened to increase the number of supreme court justices to 15, and the court didn't want to lose power so one of the justices, Owen Daniels, switched his interpretation of the commerce clause.

The commerce clause was put in just to make sure that there was free trade among the several states. The founders never intended for the federal government to use it to take so much power from the states. They used it as an excuse to start the war on drugs, the Real ID Act, the UIGEA, etc. U.S. v. Lopez did limit what Congress could do under the commerce clause though, and thank god it did because otherwise they'd be able to regulate anything and everything, even non-economic issues. There are so many things today that would violate these two clauses if we went by what the writers of the Constitution intended. If they had meant these two clauses to give Congress broad powers, then why did they specify exactly what Congress could do in the Constitution?

[daaaaahawkz]

you have the right ideas OP but sadly its a cold harsh world out there. imagine all the money that would go directly into financing terrorism against us if we left iraq

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
you have the right ideas OP but sadly its a cold harsh world out there. imagine all the money that would go directly into financing terrorism against us if we left iraq

[/ QUOTE ]
Imagine all the people who wouldn't become terrorists because their family wasn't blown up by an American bomb...

[dazraf69]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you have the right ideas OP but sadly its a cold harsh world out there. imagine all the money that would go directly into financing terrorism against us if we left iraq

[/ QUOTE ]
Imagine all the people who wouldn't become terrorists because their family wasn't blown up by an American bomb...

[/ QUOTE ]

I have had the same argument for years. These people are not terrorist by definition. Most are seeking revenge. I refer to the ones actually carrying out the attack not the fanatics. But if they were said to be seeking revenge, then people might begin to say Why? and of course that would foil this whole "War on Terror".