Were the Authors of the Federalist Papers Liars?

C'mon, you don't really believe that, do you? What exactly do you deem aggressive acts? For that matter what about North Korea?

 

Excellent point!

 

Quite the oxymoron isn't it! :laugh:

 

I don't believe in war for the sake of war but I do believe there will be war until the end of time and that we must do what we must to keep the peace. In the case of terrorism I think we're in for a very long hard fight.

 

North Korea is an example often thrown up by those that oppose what we're doing in Iraq. We've already fought a long hard war in Korea and succeded in at least helping to establish a division. We still have military forces present in South Korea to hold that line although less than we once did. We've been there 50 years - a long time - and stuck to our resolve. North Korea does a lot of saber rattling but hasn't been the kind of threat to the USA that it once was during the high times of Communism. It still bears watching but it's not necessary for us to fight North Korea right now. That could change depending upon what they do.

 

There has been and will be perpetual war on this earth. That's no oxymoron!

 

Okay, if you want to compare national debt to GDP rather than national defict to GDP then the numbers are different:

1945 - 118%
1953 - 71%
1961 - 55%
1973 - 36%
1981 - 33%
1993 - 66%
1997 - 66%
2001 - 57%
2006 - 68%

It goes up and down. It's too high and always has been! The trend is up and that's not good! Personally, I don't like being in debt. I've worked hard to eliminate all my debts. I think it's better that way. I'd like to see government do likewise.

There are three ways to get there: (1) increase taxes (that reduces GDP), (2) reduce spending (that increases GDP), and (3) increase production of goods and services (that requires investment which requires borrowing or harder work against harder competetion). We struggle will all three of these for many reasons way beyond the scope of this thread.

 

Saddam Hussein and his government was most certainly a major and long lived problem and clearly addressed in the joint resoultion by Congress. He's been taken care of now and we're busy with the other items. Meanwhile, things have also continued to move forward in Afgahistan. No one, except maybe the news media, has taken their eye off them.

 

No doubt!

Dragoon there is a difference between being a long lived problem and being a long lived threat. The two are not synonymous. Sadam, while evil in his own right, was more a thorn in the side than actual threat to these United States.

 

FTR, the able jurist, Joseph Story, was the youngest man to ever sit on the Supreme Court of the USA, appointed at the age of 32, and did so for over 33 years and 7 mos. until his death.

Ed

 

Actually, the USA has had a 'standing army' since at least the adoption of the Constitution, although at one time in the late 1700's it was fewer than one hundred troops, and the military reached it's maximum during WWII, I believe, at over 8 million.

Ed

 

That also is a result of unresolved problems from World War II which set the stage for several subsequent wars.

 

No, Iraq was and Iran, Syria, and others still are threats to the USA. Choose your own term - problem or threat - but in this case they are synoymous.

 

The dream is an America secure from terrorism wherever it might originate. Dealing with Iraq was and is a part of that effort not the exclusion of others.

The dream has nothing to do with an American Empire. Building empires abroad is the goal some other nations - some friend and some foe - have fancied over the years.

 

Ken if you were a miltary industrialist with most of congress the executive and alot of media in your pocket which would you "bank on". A shorter more limited war or a much longer and more destructive war over a wider area?