Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Yes, very good. Excellent. So, how come you know this stuff, and then you're gonna sit there with this "aggressive" approach to foreign policy?

I mean, isn't it true, that when the Founding Fathers were looking around for political models, they looked to things like Switzerland, and the Iroquois nation?

You know, it's like, if you look through history at this idea of "the contract", you'll find something quite interesting - it's like, in "early" history, the idea kinda pops up, then disappears again, the pops up again, then disappears again - and I mean, the part you always hear about in the history books, is more along the lines of, when the idea finally got "tranction", right?

And I mean, when I look through history at the "particular instances" of these kinds of "political models", they're kinda "generally associated" with this idea of "neutrality" as well, in the domain of "foreign policy" and how to relate to "other people" and "other cultures".


Like, for instance- Switzerland. Neutral, right? And the Iroquois, even took it farther, 'cause they had this additional "belief constraint" that related to the concept that "no man owns this land, God just gives it to us to take care of while we're here" - you know, or in that specific case, "the Spirits", or whatever - but you see what I mean, right?

And there have been "times" in US history, where we've kinda tended to favor "neutrality", right?

But I mean, "now", I think SS mentioned in another thread, and I think it's pretty accurate, you know, this Neo-Con foreign policy thing, is more of a "moral and ideological crusade", which seems to me, to be quite "aggressive" in nature.

So, how do you reconcile those concepts?