I’m thinking that could be a bad idea, leading to retaliation from one/both.

A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.

amerpundit on December 14, 2007 at 6:05 PM

I think a better question would be the “Sum of All Fears”(The book, not movie) scenario, in which islamist sail into the NY Harbor and set off a Nuke they have on their boat. And we do not know for sure which State’s sponsored them, like 9/11 but we have a good idea: Syria, Iran, etc.

1) Under this scenario, what would you do?

2) What will you do to keep this scenario from happening?

jp on December 14, 2007 at 6:13 PM

AZCON on December 14, 2007 at 6:28 PM

it will also make it much more probable Israel gets annialated, which is why the Neo-Nazi’s love him, along with the Fed conspiracies and linking them to the “NY money people”.

and, Communist in the CPUSA have praised him and some support also because he strengthens Russia and the ability for Communism to begin to expand again. Which was on display last week when he talked about getting rid of the Cuban embargo and talking to Castro, I guess to sing Kumbaya…….”Useful Idiot” as Stalin would call hm.

jp on December 14, 2007 at 6:37 PM

Ah. Then he has already been asked the question essentially.

yeah, but I want it asked on the national stage. youtube has this btw, along with that Lewis asked him if Reagan was wrong to bomb Lybia/Gadafi…he said yes.

Depends on your perspective. Atheists claim him as their hero. Creations claim him as their hero and so it goes. The Jeffersonians were opposed to a military build-up in the Adams administration. It is very easy to see why he could be labeled non-interventionist. It was, in fact, the weakening of the build-up in the Jefferson administration that culminated in the war of 1812. The better argument, in my mind, is not that Jefferson was not a non-interventionist, but that his non-interventionist policies ultimately failed.

but our Navy was created by Jefferson basically, as part of the Barbary Wars. If he was a non-interventionist, as the Rockwell’s stick to as dogma almost, he would’ve continued to pay the bribes to the Pirates/terrorist, yet Jefferson wanted to make a stand and not only that prove to the world the US was a power.

jp on December 14, 2007 at 6:42 PM

Look further back and place it in context. Adams build up the Navy and then it was dissembled after he left office. Guess who was responsible for that?

I know he dissembled the Army, not aware of the Navy. I know he modernized the Navy that Adams started, which he had to, so we could have a chance against the Barbary Pirates.

This is a direct action in American interests involving American trade and the American economy. Operating on the assumption the theory of interventionism is that you intervene in events that you are not of the two prime players: We were one of the players – we didn’t intervene so much as plan and execute a response.

If this is what they mean by “non-Interventionism”, then Iraq idoes not apply as they keep asserting. Paul continually labels himself the anti-war candidate though and talks about how much he like’s Ghandi, who defines being a pacifist. We had interest in Iraq, both economically and security related….plus saddam committed one act of war after another for over a decade, was a State sponsor of International islamic terror and the Oil interest/exports of the country are of great interest to all of the Industrialized world on a macro scale. I’d argue the free flow of Oil is a National Security issue as well, a blockade/embargo in the wintertime would shoot prices through the roof to a point it would shut down our economy and many, elderly especially, wouldn’t be able to heat their homes and likely die.

We do already have a “non-interventionist” strategy by that definition though with much of the world, Tibet, Darfur…..but as long as the Middle East, and in particular regimes like Saddam who wanted to be a modern day Saladin, operate there and promote Jihadism, seek Nukes/WMD’s and export Waahabism to the world along with their other main export, Oil, then US National Interest are very much at stake……..much like they were in the Barbary Wars.

same for the Communist Regimes of the past that were expanding Communism, we had interest at stake with them and were right to intervene.

If you have a reason to think that was Jefferson’s motive, I’ll be happy to check back later to see how you have derived that.

Spirit of 1776 on December 14, 2007 at 7:00 PM

I think I read it on the Corner a few months back, I know read it somewhere. Not bowing down and paying ransom to the Barbary Pirates and taking us to war over it while the rest of the world was paying the bribe, is also sending a message to the world and asserting american power. Something that also needed to be done after 9/11 and paid dividends quickly, see Gadafi turning over his WMD program…

jp on December 14, 2007 at 8:03 PM