US Military: Stay Home!

[helmuth_hubener]

A proposed amendment to the Constitution from Smedley Butler:

1. The removal of the members of the land armed forces from within the land limits of the United States for any cause whatsoever is prohibited.

2. The vessels of the United States Navy, or of the other branches of the armed service, are hereby prohibited from steaming, for any reason whatsoever except on an errand of mercy, more than five hundred miles from our coast.

3. Aircraft of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps are hereby prohibited from flying, for any reason whatsoever, more than seven hundred and fifty miles beyond the coast of the United States.

I would go further and prohibit both seacraft and aircraft from going more than 100 miles from shore. But this amendment would apply during an active war as well, and so Butler was doubtless trying to avoid hamstringing maneuvers too much in a war defending the actual United States.

Actually, I would go further and abolish the US military entirely, as discussed in this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417092-News-Flash!-%28to-some%29). But this would be a modest start. No more globe-trotting. No more far-flung slaughter adventures. Just defending the actual borders of the actual United States. Period.

[Matthew5]

Actually, I would go further and abolish the US military entirely, as discussed in this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417092-News-Flash!-%28to-some%29). But this would be a modest start. No more globe-trotting. No more far-flung slaughter adventures. Just defending the actual borders of the actual United States. Period.

Isolationist! ;)

[donnay]

A proposed amendment to the Constitution from Smedley Butler:

1. The removal of the members of the land armed forces from within the land limits of the United States for any cause whatsoever is prohibited.

2. The vessels of the United States Navy, or of the other branches of the armed service, are hereby prohibited from steaming, for any reason whatsoever except on an errand of mercy, more than five hundred miles from our coast.

3. Aircraft of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps are hereby prohibited from flying, for any reason whatsoever, more than seven hundred and fifty miles beyond the coast of the United States.

I would go further and prohibit both seacraft and aircraft from going more than 100 miles from shore. But this amendment would apply during an active war as well, and so Butler was doubtless trying to avoid hamstringing maneuvers too much in a war defending the actual United States.

Actually, I would go further and abolish the US military entirely, as discussed in this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417092-News-Flash!-%28to-some%29). But this would be a modest start. No more globe-trotting. No more far-flung slaughter adventures. Just defending the actual borders of the actual United States. Period.

+Rep

Now go a step further and abolish the REAL standing army--the militarized police in this country!

[Matthew5]

So how would you argue this against the Just War crowd (e.g. WW2, stopping genocides)?

[helmuth_hubener]

So how would you argue this against the Just War crowd (e.g. WW2, stopping genocides)? Most of what people believe is from what they think they know about history. So you have to change their view of history. For instance: "Did you know that Hitler and Germany didn't plan on a large scale world war? They only built up a small number of armaments, enough for short engagements, because they wanted some concessions from Poland (see Burton H. Klein, Germany’s Economic Preparations for War). WWII was not what Germany wanted nor planned for."

Or: "Did you know Japan wanted to surrender before the atom bombs were dropped? They had made formal petitions of surrender. They had only one condition: they could keep the emperor. But the US politicians didn't like that condition. So they bombed them. After the bombs were dropped, Japan again offered to surrender, as we all know. In the terms of surrender, it was unconditional... except for one thing: Japan would get to keep the emperor. Exactly as they'd offered before. So the atom bombs accomplished precisely nothing! It was just a huge waste of life."

Learning stuff like this can be shocking to those you talk to, but if you are sticking strictly to facts and have reputable books and sources to back it up, it can also change their view of history, which will change their view on acceptable foreign policy.

[alucard13mm]

Even though I am a non-interventionalist... I'd still rather have submarines and boomers near our enemies or make it appear they are near our enemies, just in case.

As Ice-T say, if you are in a room full of people with guns, do you want to be the only one without one?

I do see how abolishing the military will work if the citizens are armed. We can be like guerilla fighters in the vast lands of the USA.

[Cleaner44]

Most of what people believe is from what they think they know about history. So you have to change their view of history. For instance: "Did you know that Hitler and Germany didn't plan on a large scale world war? They only built up a small number of armaments, enough for short engagements, because they wanted some concessions from Poland (see Burton H. Klein, Germany’s Economic Preparations for War). WWII was not what Germany wanted nor planned for."

Or: "Did you know Japan wanted to surrender before the atom bombs were dropped? They had made formal petitions of surrender. They had only one condition: they could keep the emperor. But the US politicians didn't like that condition. So they bombed them. After the bombs were dropped, Japan again offered to surrender, as we all know. In the terms of surrender, it was unconditional... except for one thing: Japan would get to keep the emperor. Exactly as they'd offered before. So the atom bombs accomplished precisely nothing! It was just a huge waste of life."

Learning stuff like this can be shocking to those you talk to, but if you are sticking strictly to facts and have reputable books and sources to back it up, it can also change their view of history, which will change their view on acceptable foreign policy.

Holy shit, I have never heard that before regarding the surrender of Japan! Do you have any source to back that up that you can post here? Thanks.

Here is what I just found:
http://www.thecontroversialfiles.net/2013/04/the-japanese-offered-to-surrender.html

[helmuth_hubener]

As Ice-T say, if you are in a room full of people with guns, do you want to be the only one without one?

It's not about not having a gun. It's about STAYING HOME! It's about not sending your military into your neighbor's back yard looking for trouble. Look for trouble long enough, you'll find it. Run around all day every day with your gun out and pointed in front of you, like a first-person shooter video game, and eventually you may find some things to shoot. Why do that? Keep the gun in its holster.

[Matthew5]

Most of what people believe is from what they think they know about history...

Ok, if you'll let me continue to play devil's advocate here...but wouldn't one say that genocides are historical facts. Hitler did indeed kill millions of people. Some would say that the Russia should have been invaded if there wasn't such a tight iron curtain. This crowd would argue that we would need freedom to intervene in these types of situations.

[Occam's Banana]

Good ol' Uncle Smedley ... (I'll take him over Uncle Sam any day) ...

[thoughtomator]

As Ice-T say, if you are in a room full of people with guns, do you want to be the only one without one?

Random people, I'd be quite comfortable with that. I'd be the least threatening person in the room for anyone who was looking for one, while still protected by the other armed people in the room.

If all those armed people were on the same team, and it wasn't my team, then of course I'd rather be armed - but I'd even more rather not to be there at all.

[pcosmar]

So how would you argue this against the Just War crowd (e.g. WW2, stopping genocides)?

We did not enter any of those wars to stop genocide. We entered for other reasons altogether.

And we have NEVER prevented Genocide. Ever.

The only "Just War" s one in direct self defense.

[pcosmar]

Ok, if you'll let me continue to play devil's advocate here...but wouldn't one say that genocides are historical facts. Hitler did indeed kill millions of people. Some would say that the Russia should have been invaded if there wasn't such a tight iron curtain. This crowd would argue that we would need freedom to intervene in these types of situations.

I would never advocate for the devil,,he has too many advocates already.

Yes,, Hitler did kill millions, As did many others. And that was little known and not the reason for going to war. He killed a wide variety of people,, and by no means did he kill off an entire people.


Any more that the US did in the Indian wars. The Ottoman Empire killed Armenians in an attempted Genocide..
Yet there was no great war to stop them.

[donnay]

We did not enter any of those wars to stop genocide. We entered for other reasons altogether.

And we have NEVER prevented Genocide. Ever.

The only "Just War" s one in direct self defense.


Yep that is true. We never went after "Uncle" Joe who was estimated killing about 50 million or Mao (who we put in power) who was estimated killing 80 million. We turned our backs on Cambodian genoide too. We continue to turn our backs on African genocide too. This hijacked government cares not a whit about genocide--they use it as a front to have endless profitable wars for their cronies.

As this hijacked government has committed genocide on the Iraqi's and Afghani's, I forgot to add.

[kcchiefs6465]

We did not enter any of those wars to stop genocide. We entered for other reasons altogether.

And we have NEVER prevented Genocide. Ever.

The only "Just War" s one in direct self defense.


Yep that is true. We never went after "Uncle" Joe who was estimated killing about 50 million or Mao (who we put in power) who was estimated killing 80 million. We turned our backs on Cambodian genoide too. We continue to turn our backs on African genocide too. This hijacked government cares not a whit about genocide--they use it as a front to have endless profitable wars for their cronies.

As this hijacked government has committed genocide on the Iraqi's and Afghani's, I forgot to add.
Must spread some rep around.

Especially that last statement Donnay. We are supposedly worried about genocide as we actively stopped food deliveries and medicine from reaching Iraq? Or obliterated cities?

Must be living in the Twilight Zone.

[Zippyjuan]

3. Aircraft of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps are hereby prohibited from flying, for any reason whatsoever, more than seven hundred and fifty miles beyond the coast of the United States.


No fights to Alaska or Hawaii? (would have to exceed the 750 mile limit on the trip)?

[AuH20]

Too bad Butler supported FDR blindly..

[donnay]

Too bad Butler supported FDR blindly..


He exposed an assassination plot to kill FDR.

[AuH20]

He exposed an assassination plot to kill FDR.

which probably would have been a good thing given what we know of FDR. FDR was the elite of elites. There was no fascist takeover at work considering that Roosevelt Adminstration partook in and encouraged fascism.

[donnay]

which probably would have been a good thing given what we know of FDR. FDR was the elite of elites. There was no fascist takeover at work considering that Roosevelt Adminstration partook in and encouraged fascism.


You cannot stand the moral high ground with that thinking. FDR was bad, but I would prefer to have had him brought up on charges and then tried for treason as per the Constitution.

[AuH20]

You cannot stand the moral high ground with that thinking. FDR was bad, but I would prefer to have had him brought up on charges and then tried for treason as per the Constitution.

I'm just saying Butler was being manipulated by possibly both sides.

[donnay]

I'm just saying Butler was being manipulated by possibly both sides.

He knew he was. That is why he wrote; War is a Racket

[AuH20]

Fascist coup? not so much:

http://rense.com/general77/ddes.htm




Clearly, the Illuminati bankers staged the "planned coup" to give FDR credibility as Wall Street's nemesis. As I will show, they routinely used such tricks to build up their Presidential puppet.

The NWO apparently still considers Roosevelt and his model of Big Government as a propaganda asset. Fascism takes the form of socialism, as we have seen with Communism and Nazism.

The conspirators (members of the "American Liberty League") approached retired Major General Smedley Butler to use 500,000 veterans to remove FDR and become a Mussolini-like figure himself.

Smedley Butler was the LAST man you would ask if you were serious about such a coup. However, if you wanted someone to expose your coup ( as he did; thought it "smacked of treason,") Butler was the "go-to" person.

The most decorated Marine in history; Gen. Smedley Butler recently had been forced to resign by Herbert Hoover for calling Mussolini a "mad dog" and warning that his fascist cohorts "were about to break loose in Europe." Butler refused to retract his remarks and thus became a national hero overnight.


FDR was the scion of two Illuminati families, the Delanos and the Roosevelts. He was related to a dozen US Presidents: four on the Roosevelt side and eight on the Delano side. He was a third cousin of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth.

These families have some Jewish antecedents but they also have Dutch, German, Swedish and principally English blood. FDR's mother's father, Warren Delano made a sizable fortune in the opium trade. His father James Roosevelt was Vice President of a railway and director of several companies.

FDR was a spoiled brat who could always change the rules to suit his whims. He was tutored privately, and failed law school but allowed to enter the bar anyway. He never held a real job. In the 1920's, he helped float some stock market scams. As Governor and later President, he was extremely suggestible, evasive and shifty. Louis Howe created his public persona and did his thinking for him. He was FDR's "alter and wiser ego." (102)

FDR had a small army of speech writers and sometimes there were screw-ups. For his Democratic nomination acceptance in 1932, he was handed two speeches with diametrically opposed views and read them both. (157)

After his attack of encephalomyelitis, the Rockefellers gave him a health spa at Warm Springs, Georgia. They subsequently funneled millions of dollars to FDR in the guise of contributions to his "foundation" to help the sick. (Dr. Josephson found that the institution did not accept charity cases and didn't issue financial statements.) (118-ff)

In Josephson's words, "Roosevelt was magnificently bribed to run for office. By the end of 1930, some $700,000 was poured into the coffers of the Foundation ...[FDR] was the pathetic puppet of conspirators scheming the destruction of democracy and the establishment of an American monarchy." (95, 124)

In return under FDR, the US Treasury spent hundreds of millions bribing Saudi King Ibn Saud and building oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia to benefit Standard Oil. (262-263)

Josephson said the basic doctrines of the Rockefeller Empire are "feudalistic monarchic government" ... "monopoly of every necessity of life and of national existence, and absolute dictatorship..." (86-87)

The rich must "divide and rule": " The people must be dealt with not as Americans but as minorities set at each other's throats, labor vs. Capital, Black vs. White, Catholic vs. protestant, Christian vs. Jew for e.g." (87) He could have added male vs. female and gay vs. straight.


Rich degenerate inbreds running for President naturally pretend to defend the public good. Naturally their banker-sponsors are willing to feign displeasure and opposition.

FDR learned the game from his cousin Theodore Roosevelt who pretended to be a "trust buster," while remaining a creation of the trusts.

The contributors to FDR's 1932 campaign include a Who's Who of the US business elite, the same people who supposedly tried to overthrow him a year later: Hearst, Rockefeller, Morgan, Baruch, Du Pont, Astor.

In 1933, a group of "publicity men" advised that Fascism was becoming unpopular in America and FDR could score points by opposing the Nazis. "They suggested that Hearst and his publications launch a sham attack on Roosevelt and at the same time pretend to support Nazism and Fascism, thus throwing the Anti-Nazis and Anti-Fascists in the Roosevelt camp." (167)

"As the perverters of public opinion expected, the gullible public raged at Hearst and flocked to the standards of Roosevelt, blind to the fact that he was giving them another of the same brand of dictatorship." (167)

The antagonism was an utter sham. Hearst employed FDR's son Elliot, and his daughter and her husband! Similarly the public enmity of the munitions manufacturing Duponts was also a sham. Ethel Dupont married FDR Jr. !

"The Liberty League was then set up for the ostensible purpose of attacking Roosevelt and fighting his re-election. This served to throw the entire pacifist vote into Roosevelt's camp and helped reassure his re-election." (169)

Clearly the "Fascist Coup" was another clever ploy invented by the "publicity men."

[Matthew5]

I would never advocate for the devil,,he has too many advocates already....

I agree, but then again, we're not the ones that need convincing of this. We heard alot about this from those against Ron Paul's "isolationist" views.

[Matthew5]

Ok, what about terrorism? Some might say that we at least need a lightweight, quick, covert strike team to take down targets as needed around the world. Do you want the terrorist to win?!

[kcchiefs6465]

Ok, what about terrorism? Some might say that we at least need a lightweight, quick, covert strike team to take down targets as needed around the world. Do you want the terrorist to win?!
The terrorists win every time some kid is molested at an airport.

[donnay]

Ok, what about terrorism? Some might say that we at least need a lightweight, quick, covert strike team to take down targets as needed around the world. Do you want the terrorist to win?!


The Terrorists in DC are winning!

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world": it was George Washington's Farewell Address to us. The inaugural pledge of Thomas Jefferson was no less clear: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."
Source:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/24183/david-fromkin/entangling-alliances

[Matthew5]

The terrorists win every time some kid is molested at an airport.

"Yeah, but I don't mind being inconvenienced if that means we get to kill Osama Bin Laden! Our military needs to be able to move freely without restrictions, and this amendment would put us in grave danger!"

[tod evans]

So how would you argue this against the Just War crowd (e.g. WW2, stopping genocides)?

Stopping genocide is not the purpose of the US military!

Genocide is a humanitarian issue that you or anyone who cares about is free to fund private armies to fight.

WW-3 seems inevitable but the constitution is quite clear as to the methods used to declare war...This idea of using the military to promote social and political agendas flies in the face of both the constitution and common sense.

[kcchiefs6465]

"Yeah, but I don't mind being inconvenienced if that means we get to kill Osama Bin Laden! Our military needs to be able to move freely without restrictions, and this amendment would put us in grave danger!"
Yeah I'm sure this would never pass.

I doubt it would even get a single vote.

It's hard enough to try and defund the DoD by one dollar over the next ten years. People's heads would explode to read Butler's Amendment.

[Christian Liberty]

So how would you argue this against the Just War crowd (e.g. WW2, stopping genocides)?


Most of what people believe is from what they think they know about history. So you have to change their view of history. For instance: "Did you know that Hitler and Germany didn't plan on a large scale world war? They only built up a small number of armaments, enough for short engagements, because they wanted some concessions from Poland (see Burton H. Klein, Germany’s Economic Preparations for War). WWII was not what Germany wanted nor planned for."

Or: "Did you know Japan wanted to surrender before the atom bombs were dropped? They had made formal petitions of surrender. They had only one condition: they could keep the emperor. But the US politicians didn't like that condition. So they bombed them. After the bombs were dropped, Japan again offered to surrender, as we all know. In the terms of surrender, it was unconditional... except for one thing: Japan would get to keep the emperor. Exactly as they'd offered before. So the atom bombs accomplished precisely nothing! It was just a huge waste of life."

Learning stuff like this can be shocking to those you talk to, but if you are sticking strictly to facts and have reputable books and sources to back it up, it can also change their view of history, which will change their view on acceptable foreign policy.


Stopping genocide is not the purpose of the US military!

Genocide is a humanitarian issue that you or anyone who cares about is free to fund private armies to fight.

WW-3 seems inevitable but the constitution is quite clear as to the methods used to declare war...This idea of using the military to promote social and political agendas flies in the face of both the constitution and common sense.

Yeah, but what about the women and children who are getting slaughtered!

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but most people are just too stupid to understand this...

[tod evans]

Yeah, but what about the women and children who are getting slaughtered!

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but most people are just too stupid to understand this...

What about them?

Our military was conceived for national defence , not offence, not humanitarian causes.

This ridiculous idea that the US military should protect or defend anyone or anything outside our borders is insane...

[Christian Liberty]

What about them?

Our military was conceived for national defence , not offence, not humanitarian causes.

This ridiculous idea that the US military should protect or defend anyone or anything outside our borders is insane...

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying, you WILL get the emotional attacks much like I sarcastically recited above, except they aren't sarcastic.

If you tell people you would have let the Holocaust happen, you are going to get attacked. Because people are stupid.

I completely agree with your stance.

[Matthew5]

So it seems that to get something like this passed, you'd need to focus on A: Convincing people that terrorism is an invented problem and B: The original purpose of the military is to stick within the borders of the U.S.

[tod evans]

So it seems that to get something like this passed, you'd need to focus on A: Convincing people that terrorism is an invented problem and B: The original purpose of the military is to stick within the borders of the U.S.

Absolutely not!

Just more distractions, no need to even breech either subject.

Read and understand the constitution as it was written.

Any politician/judge or pundit who tries to bastardize/twist or malign the constitution must be brought up on charges of treason...

[goRPaul]

No fights to Alaska or Hawaii? (would have to exceed the 750 mile limit on the trip)?

Alaska and Hawaii were territories, not states, when Smedley was alive. Also, we no longer control the Panama Canal, so this obviously could not be passed as is today.

I find it sad that most Marines knowledge of Smedley Butler ends at he was awarded two Medals of Honor. They know nothing about how he wrote "War Is A Racket" or his involvement in the FDR coup. I didn't even know about his peace amendment until this thread.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yeah, but what about the women and children who are getting slaughtered!

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but most people are just too stupid to understand this...
Our wars are never fought for humanitarian reasons.

If the people wish to see themselves as humanitarians perhaps they should quit supporting the propping up of oppressive regimes. The secret wars, proxy wars, economic warfare harming untold thousands, the training/funding of torturers, the releasing/funding of death squads, the "collateral damage," the fear untold millions live in, the renditions, our torturing, the assassinations, the overthrowing of popularly elected leaders, the rigging of elections, the dissemination of propaganda, predator drones overhead.. what else did I miss? Surely I missed something.

Humanitarian efforts are propaganda efforts that never work out as they are sold to us and end up causing the same amount of suffering, if not more, for the people we were allegedly trying to help. This causes hate for Americans and fierce resentment as our policies are directly related to their suffering under brutal dictators and corrupt plutocracies.

People should be educated on this. It isn't complex or difficult to understand. I don't support "humanitarian" efforts simply because of the cost but also because they are unrealistic, propagandized, methods for removing who we don't agree with or those who will not bow down to corporate interests. Also because the suffering, death and fear is something I want no hand in. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And these people espouse to be humanitarians as Iranians starve from the sanctions and Iraqis are born with extra appendages? The human mind is bizarre. How someone can twist around their supporting of death and destruction as humanitarian I'll never know. Be brutally honest with them. A baby being born with a tumor the size of their head, on their head, does a lot to stop their arguments of fighting for freedom and American exceptionalism.

We can't even get our own house in order with 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners, imprisoning five times more children than the next country on the list and these people think they or "we" are humanitarians? I haven't heard much about Gitmo. About Manning and his treatment. Hell, I didn't hear much about the Abyan airstrike or Collateral Murder. They are humanitarians when it fits their propagandized, mis-educated views of the world. Anything less and they are hawks. Well depending on which color is in the White House, to be clear.

If you encounter one (an alleged humanitarian) show them a picture of an eviscerated child. They'll undoubtedly shrug it off and say, "War is hell. We attack them there so they don't attack us here." Okay. Show them a video of a child being born with three arms. Let the screams of the child and their mother sink in. Are they still claiming moral superiority? How about the death squads of Honduras? The teaching of how to torture women with glass and boiling water on/in their vagina or anus. Can these people still claim to be humanitarians? There will come a point and time where they will have to acknowledge to themselves that we are not a benevolent force of good throughout the universe saving those who can't save themselves. Our motives are selfish and politicized. They aren't even our motives. BP Oil in Iran and Genie Energy in Syria. Seems legit. Not to mention so called "incubator babies," (or the lies of them) yellowcake uranium, (or the lack of) I could go on and on.

[Matthew5]

If the people wish to see themselves as humanitarians perhaps they should quit supporting the propping up of oppressive regimes. The secret wars, proxy wars, economic warfare harming untold thousands, the training/funding of torturers, the releasing/funding of death squads, the "collateral damage," the fear untold millions live in, the renditions, our torturing, the assassinations, the overthrowing of popularly elected leaders, the rigging of elections, the dissemination of propaganda, predator drones overhead.. what else did I miss? Surely I missed something.

And now you're revealing the end result of statism. Make sure they're ready to go down that rabbit hole.

[donnay]

What about them?

Our military was conceived for national defence , not offence, not humanitarian causes.

This ridiculous idea that the US military should protect or defend anyone or anything outside our borders is insane...

I am all of Rep. I owe you one!

[Pericles]

What about them?

Our military was conceived for national defence , not offence, not humanitarian causes.

This ridiculous idea that the US military should protect or defend anyone or anything outside our borders is insane...

Which is why the National Guard was created under the power of Congress to raise and support armies - to evade the Constitutional restriction on the use of state's militias by the Congress.

[Origanalist]

I am all of Rep. I owe you one!

Done, I was going to do it anyway.

[helmuth_hubener]

Ok, if you'll let me continue to play devil's advocate here...but wouldn't one say that genocides are historical facts. Hitler did indeed kill millions of people. Some would say that the Russia should have been invaded if there wasn't such a tight iron curtain. This crowd would argue that we would need freedom to intervene in these types of situations. It takes a huge amount of arrogance to assume that you can swoop into situations all around the world and prevent genocides. Can you always tell which side is doing the genocide? What if both are? Even assuming you can always correctly identify which party is consummate evil of blackest hue, and which party is white, innocent, and pure as the driven snow, what is the proper course of action to take to stop the genocide? Could entering the war on the side of the Pure Good people just induce the Pure Evil people to slaughter their victims much faster, since they know they now have a limited amount of time to get it done? Is there any reliable way to stop genocides effectively? Is there anything reliable and predictable in war?

The citizens of the country getting into the war (the US) know nothing about the region, its history, its ethnic groups, its tensions, nor even where to find it on a map. The soldiers of the US going to actually do the fighting (being less educated than average) know, on average, even less! The politicians and generals in charge of the whole thing are not much better and have all kinds of perverse incentives. In short: this is a terrible idea. A ravenous bloodthirsty army is a lousy tool for humanitarianism. And, yes, that is what the US army is -- don't delude yourself it's somehow different than every other army.

[Matthew5]

It takes a huge amount of arrogance to assume that you can swoop into situations all around the world and prevent genocides...

Thanks for your answer, I guess my final question would be (and the one I run into the most): how do you convince the average citizen, who grew up worshiping the state, that we're not always (if ever) the good guys?