The World's Police
Does the U.S. need to act as the world's police? Stossel and guests debate a military strike against Syria, the politics of war and to what extent for...
Sep 25, 2013
Does the U.S. need to act as the world's police? Stossel and guests debate a military strike against Syria, the politics of war and to what extent for...
Sep 25, 2013
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
When we CP.
People dying from chemical we have.
We want to do.
We can stop children from being gassed to -- This is not the time to be silent spectators.
To slaughter they always say we must -- to dangerous clear the world.
This aggression would not stand.
Will not stand there's enough evidence now we must act but this time other politicians pushed back they shoot back.
Then what do we did we do not know yet with the good guys.
Know most Americans oppose intervention should -- bomb Syria.
Though I do not -- -- -- at all impacting -- US cannot going to go -- again to people even know where Syria is.
-- -- -- -- -- -- every.
Speak to many now.
Israel -- who'll stop Tiger Woods if not we plumber and brother and I -- good week in the world's police.
That's our show tonight.
I hate -- Charles -- what he's done in Syria I want -- stopped.
But I also hate what tyrants do -- North Korea.
I ran Somalia China Russia that Congo other places.
So win should America intervene what's our responsibility.
Is the world's biggest superpower.
Congressman Steve Israel says serious a special case because they use chemical weapons.
Congressman that makes all the difference.
No it doesn't necessarily make all the difference John but it makes a big difference when you have weapons of mass destruction capabilities and Iran.
When you have American troops on the border with North Korea and a pathological regime that is watching what is happening with Syria and -- conclude that if it's okay for security use chemical weapons.
It's okay for the north Koreans to use chemical weapons against our troops.
And when you have Hezbollah in southern Lebanon or where you have elements in it within Syria.
Who can now acquire hijack those chemical weapons capabilities because -- has drawn them out.
You put all of that together and I do believe we have a core national security interest in acting.
All right but don't these countries look at -- one -- where.
Half a million people were killed and also say American didn't intervene there but what.
Why is the line here is just because your president said I draw a line.
Oh no not at all affect look our -- -- I happen to support the prior.
President that when it came -- many national security issues we should not be the world's policeman.
But we should always protect our interests.
And while we may believe that we have a moral interest in standing against.
I think the kinds of of murder that we saw in Syria it is not just that.
It is the risk of proliferation.
It is the risk of these horrific weapons of mass destruction falling into the wrong hands and that's why I've made the judgment that.
If diplomacy fails and I hope it won't but if diplomacy fails.
We have a -- national interest in making sure that weapons of mass destruction cannot proliferate.
From Syria to other places and other entities.
Should we also bomb I Rand -- they acquire nuclear weapons.
Well I believe that if Iran.
Acquires nuclear weapons we should use all the options and our toolbox and I actually have said quite -- clearly and quite consistently.
That a military option should be reserved if Iran announces that it has a nuclear weapon.
But because they -- and Iran in nuclear weapons capability.
Changes the whole balance in the Middle East creates a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and that really threatens our interest in the interest of the entire world.
I'm just skeptical on what we can accomplish.
Politicians always say we can fix this you want to run education and health care and now international affairs.
Let's say we send a missile and we miss we pound sand like Clinton did and in Libya.
That's not good let's say we.
The leader how do we know the next group is better -- aside or let's say we just little innocent people we make new enemies so much time we can -- things works.
-- John look I I get that we hadn't experienced in Afghanistan where we went and tried -- one side they were called the mujahideen.
And then they go more into a group called al-Qaeda and the Taliban so why do you think very very careful.
Well that's why I'm very skeptical about -- one side vs the other.
In this instance we are talking about a military operation that is confined.
The regime's chemical weapons capacities.
Not just to stop the regime from using chemical weapons against its own citizens.
But to stop those rebel elements from acquiring those chemical weapons.
Which they can now do hypothetically because those weapons have been drawn out of the stockpiles.
So it -- to stop any side from acquiring that capability.
And chemical weapons are so much worse -- we just saying you want to kill your people you better use conventional weapons.
But they ice I've actually -- seeing those videos I know many of your viewers have seen the videos of what happened in the aftermath of August 21 I posted my my web site.
Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction because they do inflict mass casualties.
In a very short period of time.
Which is why you when chemical weapons were used in the form of mustard gas in World War I the world was appalled.
And we said we wouldn't allow that to happen again I agree with that decision not believe it should be sustained.
Thank you congressman Israel I just don't -- hundred chemicals make it so different all war is awful.
Now this sort.
He supports a military strike but the public's turn against at the latest Fox News poll finds 68% of voters say we gotta stay out of Syria.
And this is different for what I am used to in my reporting career I didn't see this kind of opposition say when not.
First President Bush said America must go to war against Iraq.
This aggression would not -- And -- will not -- the dangerous clear.
When the second President Bush wanted to attack Iraq again the senate voted 77 to 23 to authorize the use of military force.
The joint resolution is passed instead of drifting along toward tragedy.
We will set a course towards safety and now the president has set a red line against -- when he uses chemical weapons I didn't -- -- repertoire.
The world's federal but it wouldn't be a big war unbelievably small limited kind of effort in -- all those other countries behind us.
There are a number of countries.
In the double digits.
Who are prepared to take military action we have more countries prepared to take military action.
Then we actually could use.
In that kind of military action being contemplated.
Let's debate that with the -- -- yes -- he's a former lieutenant commander in the navy who has family members and Syria.
He wants the US to intervene now.
We should have already intervene in -- Fox military analyst colonel David Hunt says no we should not.
-- -- you first week we should support.
The moderates who say and bombed military facility.
Absolutely I think that's the only way forward there's no political solution John.
And this is about containment -- if he's -- of Iran this is a regional conflict is no longer civil war and who's left to promote liberty and and a tipping forward in the right direction of places like Syria that border our ally Israel if it if we don't help those on the ground that -- freedom.
Eight you can see now the current environment in Syria has promoted al-Qaeda and -- law.
And the most vicious and they hope can prevent genocide if not the United States.
And a -- prevent it by -- launching attacks.
Well you already have a popular uprising this is not just like Iraq.
He had millions of Syrian that are rising up against their government and are being smothered by the help of Russia and Iran.
And a military trained in history by the Soviets so.
We armed them and we give them space on the ground.
Did great there military through a two week operation and a general keen laid out and it will give them room to -- Syria in this opportunity in the right direction.
It's a two week operation colonel hunt.
Yeah I had that -- right now.
Giving communications gear and and to al-Qaeda.
Up to 25% of the forest it's -- -- the rebels' side is al-Qaeda on adultery.
And the -- -- how is it possible on the day after the twelfth anniversary of 9/11.
And we are now assisting al-Qaeda is they -- does that conflict should not -- -- one side as Hezbollah and Russia the other side of al-Qaeda.
This is not -- on national interest we we cannot we cannot be in a third war in twelve years -- -- Is duty I assume you agree with Senator John McCain who says this is not al-Qaeda that there are moderates in Syria -- we should help.
They are moderates serious a moderate nation.
-- -- there is on the ground atop the family in Damascus and in -- let people they are millions of Syrians part of local coordination committees.
That are part of helping to free Syria army yes al-Qaeda that the most.
Five to 101000 you've done an Islamic liberation front that are not our allies certainly if they're there as part of it Jihad.
They're not our friends but the majority of Syrians are far more diversity even in Egypt the brotherhood has less civil -- -- an Egypt.
And you saw even in Egypt the majority of Muslims rose up against the brotherhood so that's gonna happen it's only gonna happen post -- side.
And I would ask colonel hunt.
Al-Qaeda is thriving now under aside and -- if you want to defeat them it would only happen post aside.
-- -- The -- NRA.
If it's only 10% -- -- whatever number you want to arguments one person.
United States of America cannot although we -- we seem to be doing right now.
Be seen is supporting.
One side which has al-Qaeda.
And the other side where fighting has I don't obligation called Hezbollah the first thing is gonna happen are we launch missiles is our president you gotta get hit.
I it's a tragic happening in Syria just I think that we are war weary nation and that cannot get involved and how the war within twelve years for the reason we're saying.
All of a sudden killing that the child would gas is worth a dropping a building on it that -- 120000.
-- but now.
Powell because the gas we won again and again and again I keep saying -- -- we're getting in on is Al -- side.
I can't be -- -- you don't just -- in America.
The American Media can't agree on who's a moderate in our congress.
How we possibly know in Syria and the intelligence officers most of -- even speak Arabic.
Well well I think you know the moderates are those that are not there for Jihad that are there for freedom and fighting -- oppression in the national it'll tell us that we know.
Well on the ground we've had a number of -- contacts -- with those in the local coordination committees all around Syria.
That really just want to open up society as part of the Arab awakening which we're seeing through social media and elsewhere -- the millions why not just these few thousand.
And I'm I -- And just so hurt to hear my conservative friends and media and others say that well the Middle East has become a post American environment and because al-Qaeda sort of the Arab dictator.
Page one playbook is to unleash -- Qaeda and there for legitimize emergency law.
Mean that liberty and American advocacy for freedom is gone and we can help -- them towards an enlightenment and majority which is the only way path where.
The only path forward in the Middle East.
I just think were reacting to what we heard going into Iraq that we'd be welcomed with open arms as liberators.
Well the free Syria army is begging for help and if they don't get it -- -- John they're getting it from.
Saudi Arabia from Qatar who I guarantee you are helping the groups that colonel -- worried about like al-Qaeda and Islamist six that are -- -- if we want to work with those that believe in the universal declaration of human rights.
It's up to America at the start to figure out who those are on the ground because no one else in this world otherwise we're doing a Darwin doctrine which basically -- helping the most vicious.
Win and and the good guys will never have a chance no matter what we do.
Colonel hunt you get the last word.
Yeah there's no question that that they.
Very -- need help and there are moderates and -- side and it's a great country there's no question.
But you cannot help the United States America are what you are doing right now arming elements of al-Qaeda in them.
I would we -- getting -- through that quickly.
And we cannot launch missiles and -- which would change the course of this war because we don't even know or have control.
-- who -- take over if -- side is guilt.
This is a dangerous thing for us to do and it is not on national interest.
Now or ever to get involved in this kind of a war considering where we've what we've been doing the last twelve years.
And just to clarify the history he's talking about artists that to help the people fight the Russians in Afghanistan we armed the people who ended up.
Killing us on September 11 thank you colonel hunt and -- jets are coming up.
Is it because Barack Obama's president that Democrats are for war while most Republicans are against.
My next guest says no this is not democracy.
-- more eager to go to war Republicans or Democrats.
Can I think the Republicans.
I would have thought that -- -- over Syria they're mostly Democrats polls show more Democrats than Republicans support a military strike.
So is this hypocrisy.
Liberals and conservatives changing their position depending who is president.
Well says historian Fannie is Russell in a media column.
What do you mean.
I mean that this is a progressive war I mean that Iraq actually was a progressive for I mean that.
The ideology of progressive -- which is about a hundred years old has always said.
We are obligated to uplift and save the world.
Not just in the ghettos but outside our borders anywhere we find the oppressed we must go out and save them.
So there's Democrats that started most of the -- World War I Woodrow Wilson -- were to FDR Harry Truman the Korean War.
Kennedy and Johnson Vietnam Bill Clinton Kosovo Somalia that's exactly right.
Progressive -- it has been an imperialistic ideology from its very beginning.
But in my lifetime at least it's Democrats who have dominated the anti war movement when George W.
Bush asked congress to approve the use of force in Iraq the bill passed.
But it was Democrats who said things like this.
Vote no on this resolution but.
When I look out over this crowd today.
I know there is no shortage of patriots.
Or patriots netbook but I do -- polls.
-- the dumb war.
So what's the difference.
What happened was that in Vietnam progressives who originally usually supported -- the intervention in Vietnam.
Saw that their ideology ended up killing millions of people in that case and became horrified I think but he ends of their ideology about the consequences of it.
And for a brief moment in history turned against intervention only because of that and also because.
They didn't trust the policy makers who led those wars and -- -- now Barack Obama's presidency says I trust myself and so this is a good cause -- and one of the things you've been seeing since Obama has been returned by -- to their original interventionist.
You could say imperialists roots.
Now it was mostly report Republicans -- supported the Iraq War for.
We have a long list of Republicans who have changed their position on that.
It I think we can we're rolling them here first the senators and the congressmen.
And some other well known Republicans this is not hypocrisy is not at all so than this so called neo cons who drove us to war in Iraq.
Actually all began in -- Democratic Party.
They all began as progressives they're great heroes they have -- -- Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt the great progressives in history.
They have been consistent not hypocritical at all they supported intervention in Iraq to remake Iraq in our image and their supporting intervention in Syria to do the same.
What is what we're seeing what's so interest thing.
Is the convergence of what's called neo conservatism with progressive -- what I say is new conservatism is neither new nor conservative.
They are actually fundamentally progressive.
They are finding they're natural allies in what are people called progressives.
But at least this time the majority is not total long.
Well that's good my -- -- -- a.
But what I'm puzzled most by the media which.
-- -- I've known in the media it's been pretty leftist and mostly anti war.
And yet the media often seem to be leading the charge at least at first a chemical weapons look at this picture it's terrible we must act and I would think that MSNBC.
Would be -- the lefty channel would be the most anti war and it's done so much let's go to war cheerleader.
I just don't think that the world can sit idly by and watch innocent children be gassed to death.
If you basically lied put down a red line and say don't use chemical weapons and then he goes ahead and -- does it.
But the most powerful words came from ten year old C dropped.
A message she said she had for President Obama.
He wants his kids to be like us aren't we just like them when we get bigger and we want to write Obama didn't help us.
We have to attack or worked letting children.
MSNBC is finally understanding who they really are what progressive -- really is and always has been.
Since we invaded against Spain in Cuba and the Philippines through World -- I to Korea Vietnam because of on Somalia.
It has been progressives who have killed far more people in this country and they don't just want to invade that what's the philosophy behind.
They ultimately want to remake.
The world in our image that's what progressives have said since Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
That's what progressive isn't always has been about it's about remaking the people in the -- and Americans and -- means remaking the benighted people of the world on our image as well.
And as you say domestically goes well beyond that.
We can make education better we must run education we must run health care we must police -- work for us we can make everything better.
Government can do that -- that's right it is uplifting the poor and the oppressed.
Through the means of the state do that monopoly on violence.
Domestically that's taxation and law enforcement abroad -- through military force it's very consistent.
No matter how often it failed state continue to support that solved thank you said he is Russell coming up.
What is the constitution say -- the president without congress just decide to bomb anyway.
And also how both right and left.
About the -- -- I have met.
I don't know much about the Middle East I don't speak Arabic I don't really understand the culture or Islamic traditions.
I assume most Americans don't really get what's going on there and yet.
So many people -- so certain that they know what to do.
If they're gonna kill each other let -- kill each other we must stop the people in watch.
She didn't if we do not pass the authorization measure.
What message will aside -- What message will Iran receive.
We have to live up to our commitments.
Now I happen to agree with Glenn Beck on this one -- as I said I don't know much and that doesn't know that much either so it ought to keep us humble.
Says the author of -- -- fox what does not apply here.
-- Miliband who she grew up and Algeria and she says in this debate neither side knows what it's talking about.
So -- let's start with the left what do they get wrong.
Well I think the most important thing to know on the grounds that is that in every single Muslim majority country people are standing up to fundamentalism.
And the left is sometimes too politically correct to recognize the danger -- that fundamentalism.
Or to listen to the voices of these people who are doing that brave work.
And it what do you mean there too politically in Kirk.
Two politically correct give me an example.
So an example would be if that some on the left have tried to embrace things like failing or like the imposition that Syria.
Where is on the ground in fact people are challenging all of those things.
I think some on the left in the US do that because some on the right have spoken out in -- discriminatory way against the -- and against bailing.
Thank you are creature of the left you've worked for the center for constitutional rights and Amnesty International.
He say Amnesty International got very cozy with the former Guantanamo detainee who supported the Taliban.
And was close to supporting terrorists.
Well -- -- -- -- a lot of wonderful work against torture in the death penalty which I support that I disagree it is one sometimes does with an employer.
About their close relationship with a man named.
-- -- -- That wasn't -- was detained in Guantanamo without charge or trial and I think it was right to oppose the way in which he was detained.
But when he got out of jail amnesty got very cozy with him and brought him -- to judge children's poetry competitions and so on.
And this is a person who was -- had a sympathizer and had been in -- out of -- -- training camps.
The head of a gender unit who were some women's rights at amnesty key to Sagal.
Spoke out against his close relationship and was pushed out of the organization and I believe that that was a wrong decision.
We called Amnesty International they they didn't call us back about that.
The Center for Constitutional Rights decided there are present the interest -- of Anwar -- -- lucky who was on the US kill list because he's.
Again the Center for Constitutional Rights has done some extremely important work to defend human rights in the context of the war on terror but I disagreed with him in 2010.
When they chose to represent Anwar -- iraqis' interest for free he was not a detainee.
He was at large in Yemen at the time.
They represented him -- him because he was put on -- kill list by the US government and I certainly oppose assassinations.
But the problem is that -- locking himself was advocating and calling for assassinations.
And in fact his sermons were then they -- were claimed to be the inspiration even later after his death.
-- for the Boston Marathon of bombers so what I'm saying is yes let's speak out against assassinations but not do it by standing up for somebody who himself was advocating them.
Yeah he supported assassination of where many -- stood.
The Fort Hood killer when we called the center for constitutional -- -- just say well look we were just protesting the drone strikes.
Whether what what is the right wing get wrong in your opinion.
And that the right some on the right get things wrong here as well as some on the right have justified for example the use of torture in the context of the war on terror which is just wrong and against our values and also makes Muslims -- feel like they're victimized which is something that plays into the hands.
-- caddies were trying to recruit.
The right -- sometimes also uses really discriminatory and racist language when they talk about Muslims especially the last few years we -- some of this.
In the Tea Party.
And again that's just wrong and what it does is take -- the space from people like me -- -- both proud of their Muslim heritage and also trying to be critical of the extremists.
So your solution is government shouldn't get involved civil society should.
Well I think both government and civil society can play a role.
The first and most important thing is we have to stop supporting fundamentalists.
And I think many Americans would be surprised to learn.
That many in the region think that we've been doing just that.
Whether it's supporting the Muslim Brotherhood after they came to power in Egypt in 2011.
Or in Tunisia as well.
And Saudi Arabia where women can't drive we've called that a moderate government Karine -- were authorized so I agree with you on that when we're out of time.
Coming up some Americans say instead of bombing people we should win hearts and minds with.
-- -- -- Fields schools give money give full we've been doing that.
How's that working out.
I don't want to bomb Syria but.
I'm no isolationist.
I want to.
Help people who need help people who are who -- store just poor but how do we best do that.
Many people say four days the answer and the singer -- Powell used to believe that.
-- used to stop concerts to tell fans western governments can end poverty.
We have resources you know how.
Angelina Jolie went to Africa and talked about what would be possible if America we just -- -- Louisiana's say is that there are solutions.
But what Jolie and -- didn't think about until recently is that there is a big difference between government to government foreign aid and people like -- going to the third -- try to help people directly.
-- at least has realized that the best way to help people is to allow capitalism.
And he recently surprised made by saying -- is just a stop gap.
Commerce and entrepreneurial capitalism take more people out of poverty than eight.
But if the singer can get it why can't our politicians.
Chris -- wonders about that -- he says we should stop all foreign aid that.
America's billions in humanitarian aid is doing bad by trying to do good.
And that's roughly the title of his -- so Chris forty me.
Well ultimately when it comes down to state provided humanitarian -- there's a fundamental gap between.
The intention -- rhetoric of doing good at helping those in need and the actual results was often times are very bad and harm the very people we intend to help.
-- -- -- Well there's a variety of ways that that we harm them one is that when you inject millions if not billions of dollars of foreign aid into a already.
Corrupt and dysfunctional society.
It further politicize his life it fuels corruption.
It fuels cluster crafts and allows regimes which are already terrible and dysfunctional to sustain.
On top of it even where aid does help in the short term in other words does provide some people in need with things that oftentimes creates a fundamental dependency problem.
Which is those individuals then become dependent on handouts and without any means of further -- widespread development they rely on continued handouts from other countries and governments.
So we give people food and that teaches people.
That they can't make money growing their own food -- the business model we give it to governments they steal it and so it rewards corrupt people.
Got more than fifteen billion in foreign aid and but.
They're GDP was only about sixteen billion it has to be distorting.
That's exactly right a report by the World Bank indicated that about 97%.
Of of Afghanistan's GDP is a results of aid and spending by.
Foreign occupiers and ultimately what this means is that the entire economy is propped up.
By transfers from the United States and other developed countries to Afghanistan the problem here.
Is that if those donors ever leave the country either the occupiers or those transfer stopped.
Then there really is very little genuine sustainable economic activity within Afghanistan.
Such that ordinary Afghan citizens will suffer.
India not American money that was just wasted -- -- -- must be phenomenal there there was a military official who told congress that they had these.
Blocks of hundred dollar bills this is a 100000 dollars here.
That there were just corralled the office they were tossing the white football it's to -- -- entertain themselves and much of that money disappeared.
That's exactly right -- the at one estimate or the best that's that we have -- Iraq is that six point six billion dollars just vanished it was stolen.
And and disappeared -- and we we the United States have no idea.
Of where -- -- how went missing and this is the fundamental problem with -- there's a lack of accountability and responsibility.
And and one of the best six basic lessons in life really -- that we teach children as you have to have consequences for your actions -- -- won't act responsibly.
Yet when it comes to spending.
Billions and billions of dollars.
We don't seem to hold politicians and eight practitioners.
To the same standard and therefore they they waste the money it's not fair so they really don't incur the cost of wasting other people's money.
Well bottles figured it out we should help them become.
Self supporting -- capitalist thank you Chris court.
Coming up if we do go to war what are the rules can a president really just on the whoever he wants.
Says -- here this is constitution.
At least -- here -- it says that if America goes to war congress should declare war.
Except congress never declared war on Korea Vietnam Grenada Panama Iraq Bosnia Afghanistan.
Iraq the second time we're Libya.
So what's up with that.
We also kill people withdrawal ends in Yemen Pakistan and other places without a declaration of war so what's going judge injured of Polycom -- Us what politicians just ignore -- politicians ignore the constitution.
At first it's great to be here and and thanks for having me to discuss this important subject politicians ignore the constitution.
And write their own laws in 1973.
Congress enacted the war powers resolution -- resolution but it's a federal statute over president Nixon's veto.
It basically says the president can fight any war he wants anywhere in the world.
For ninety days you -- have to go back to congress for funds and authorization beyond ninety days.
President -- 68 footer from.
Would he be started because he wanted more power -- -- -- restrained him in fact it liberate presidents the firewall those words you just nicely ticked off all of which were fought Libya Yemen.
Pakistan Iraq Iraq Afghanistan.
Without -- congressional declaration of war.
No one's challenged.
The statute as being against the constitution no recurrence of abuse -- and no wonder how could hit it not going to the Supreme Court.
Because we have 382 very difficult obstacles to challenging federal statutes one is.
If it's a dispute between the president and the congress.
Both of whom are elected each of whom are elected by voters the -- -- say it's a political dispute.
It's for them to resolved -- the voters to resolve we are not gonna get involved in a political dispute between the president the congress the other is.
A clause in the constitution.
That says you can't just challenge a statute you have to have standing to challenge standing means you have personally.
Been harmed it.
By the operation.
Of the statute so who would have standing.
Somebody who was a victim of an un declared war in another -- -- what have to come over here and challenge the statute not likely to happen so it's being challenged in the courts have just said.
You can't do this sport hasn't even Magellan hasn't even been challenged everybody likes congress likes it it's off the hook it wouldn't have to we'll.
You don't like -- why don't why don't like get people who -- -- challenge people who believe.
That this means what it says the constitution.
Don't like -- what all presidents from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama love that statute because it lets them wage many wars without getting permission.
This year the president said even though I possess the authority to order military strikes I believe it was right to take this debate to congress.
When he was not yet president he said the president does not.
Have power to authorize a military strike hit a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
Well he's somebody can -- point now this hypocrisy.
Under the law.
And he's right under the constitution.
Here's he's wrong under the law and right into the constitution under the law war powers act -- -- president -- anywhere from ninety days.
But under the constitution and the treaties we've signed.
We can't fight any war we can only fight a war if we've been attacked -- war.
Out to be attacked if we're asked to come to the -- of an ally.
Or if the UN asks us to enforce a law or rule that another country has agreed to this doesn't none of these four situation -- applies to Syria.
Correct and I go back to Libya -- and the president bombed Libya he said well this is.
Different from the hostilities.
Contemplated in the war powers act.
In which where I'm restrained -- where this is not sustained fighting or active fire with hostile forces.
But I would think bombing people is like going to war against -- -- People is going to war -- after he several you just -- he said to be no boots on the ground now.
When somebody says that you have to ask them what they mean.
Because boots on the ground to the president means people in uniform did we have Americans on the ground yes they were special forces out of uniform.
And they were CIA who never Wear uniform.
We're re killing people could they got killed for God's sakes because of our box if that's not a -- don't know what it is he made this decision when congress was on spring break.
And he was on a trip to Brazil there was nothing congress could have done about it and then when congress came back from its spring break.
It just looked the other way as Qaddafi is a bad guy and the president is the president.
Not for a long time -- presence just did what they wanted to there were very few challenges I get the feeling now with the Tea Party with them growing libertarian movement.
There is more of a chants that people start looking to this and saying you know this matters.
You know you and I have been devoting.
They most recent parts of our professional careers to say this matters the constitution.
Is a delegation of authority to the government it's not an experiment it's not a game.
It's not a test it precisely says what freedoms we will give up for the common good when the government operates outside the constitution.
It ignores the fundamental -- of the law.
Above the land and a tramples our freedoms and that's not we elected to government for it didn't do what protect us from the government.
When the government doesn't abide.
Console -- -- was supposed to have.
I mean it's -- shallow but sometimes I think if -- were written in not written eighteenth century language this might influence more people that they.
We're out of time thank you judge the -- Tonto next I'm told we libertarians who -- bombing Syria are isolationists.
I ever since -- and I resist the people who say that.
We'll explain why.
Did you know that senator Rand Paul is -- hideous isolationist.
Because he wishes to cut Barack Obama not an inch of slack.
That's according to a column in the Daily Beast.
A Wall Street Journal writers among several complain about the isolationists -- were eating its way through the GOP apple.
In America secretary of state says.
This is not the time for armchair isolationism.
Give me a break.
Isolation this suggests we libertarians -- -- wanna kill people in foreign countries people who didn't attack us wants to withdraw from the world.
Before war World War II American isolationist did fight to keep refugees who were trying to escape Hitler from coming to America.
Isolationist isolationists also opposed international trade opposed immigration.
We libertarians are not.
We want people to be allowed to be engaged everywhere let tourism flow let us trade with people of every nation.
It said would goods cross borders armies don't.
In history backs that up.
A report funded by several governments found on the level of armed conflict -- Muslim countries is lower today than two decades ago.
And trade is a reason.
Maybe that's why I smile when I travel and see ads like me you -- -- -- Listen -- can move on.
This is on me and him and I -- six.
And as we trade goods we also export our ideas -- our culture.
I don't claim that this will -- conflict but what's more likely to win hearts and minds of young people.
Cruise missiles may be killing their cousins or -- the lifestyle shown on American television.
We're good kind of got a good look at Canadian and it -- -- -- -- evening and you can it's a good -- -- -- it's harder for radicals to demonize people who make you laugh.
When the Soviet Union fell conservatives said it happened because of Ronald Reagan's military build up okay that played a part.
But so -- American music.
In 1988 Bruce Springsteen held a concert in east -- They even they -- behind the iron curtain a 160000.
People came to hear him perform.
And they knew the words to born in the USA and they sang along.
Springsteen stopped his performance told the crowd he hope one day of all the barriers will be torn down.
One year later the Berlin Wall did come down.
I understand that Springsteen wasn't responsible but -- obvious comparison between Soviet repression.
And America's vibrant culture played a big park.
Our market economy probably played a bigger parks.
People the Soviet bloc wanted what we have.
These cultural and economic influences work and they don't radicalize people by killing their neighbors.
Also they won't bankrupt us the way war may.
So I'll let our music alarm -- -- -- neo cons donate books filled with ideas dictators hate.
Let our inventions like this -- Exposed isolated people to the wonders of the free world.
There are times when we have to go to war this is not one of those times.
I wants to be engaged in the world without being in charge of it.
That's our show but not.
Filter by section