The differences are not too subtle when comparing, say, protecting the independent commercial shipowners of a fledgling nation whose economy was on a thin thread with, for instance, safeguarding the monopoly of one American corporation (United Fruit) in various Central American republics, or rescuing a handful of medical students in Grenada.
There was a "clear and present danger" off the Barbary Coast. As Tom would say, show me where ...our nationals [were] harrassed by governments and/or quasi governments half a world away in Iraq.
The clear and present danger in Iraq was to Iraqis - that's not a Constitutionally viable justification for undeclared war, but it's a morally sufficient justification. Rescuing people from oppression and torture by tyrants should have been the first stated priority and goal of the action. Unfortunately, that's not the card that was played.
Current Events » in reply to Where was the clear and Present Danger when the Marines invaded Tripoli?
Precedent alone does not create rectitude
The whole thread (13 posts)
- Weapons search tests our principles
- re: Weapons search tests our principles
- Simple Questions.......with no answers
- Is the ranking Democrat Carl Levin threatening to remove the US from its leadership role in the war against terror?
- Interesting...the Left is starting a CYA maneuver.
- Where was the clear and Present Danger when the Marines invaded Tripoli?
- Crank (noun):
- Reality check for your one note symphony
- And this tests our resolve
