This is in response to a very good and well written blog by Main of Iron who stated her reasons for not believing in a non interventionist foreign policy. Although I respect her opinion I felt it deserved a reply. To do so I took quotes from her blog and responded to them individually. To save space I have skipped the part about Obama since I more or less agree with her on that issue.
Here is the link to her blog.
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/share/profiles/?slid=e29258e5-b455-ccf4-95c6-804ffe421b9c&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=e29258e5-b455-ccf4-95c6-804ffe421b9c&plckPostId=Blog%3ae29258e5-b455-ccf4-95c6-804ffe421b9cPost%3a34eaef64-3836-4e7f-9447-d5b67b8919bd&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest
“I suppose because you don’t know me, and I am a Republican, you probably picture me as some pasty white, blue haired old lady, cloaking herself in tawdry red Republican Party attire.”
Naw, I have nothing against Republicans and I try my best not to lump everyone into a single Cleche. My problem is with the party, but the people who call themselves Republicans for the most part are very decent people. My parents are Republican, most of my friends are, so I have a very high opinion of most Republicans I know, even if I don’t agree with you on a lot of issues.
“I am with you in spirit, but I am a Republican because I cannot leave my country open and vulnerable, naked to the whims of our enemies, without a realistic plan for National Security, and foreign policy as a whole.”
Foreign policy is always what turns people off to Libertarianism, and I think its probably the biggest misconception about the party and system of beliefs. People get none interventionism and isolatism confused, but if you really believe in small government then none intervention is a logical conclusion, although albeit not the only one. The premise of small government is, to me at least, to keep governments too small to interfere in our daily lives. I don’t want the feds coming in and telling me, or my state, how to run my life. But if our government doesn’t have the right to tell the states and people within its boarders how to behave, what right does it have to tell OTHER nations and the people outside out boarders how to behave? The government that can impose its will upon other nations is one that can also impose its will upon its own people.
“It is not realistic in the time we live in, to expect to live in a Utopia, where what I hear you all calling ‘non-intervention’ is an option. “
No one’s calling for utopia. I have not heard anyone say that if we take a non interventionist policy that all of a sudden the world would be at peace and unicorns will frolic through the meadows. No one is saying that. What we ARE saying, however, is that non interventionism would make our nation much safer then it is as of right now. Where would we be right now if we hadn’t forced our will upon other nations? Look, you can talk about the soviets all you want, but Reagan didn’t bring them down, communism did, and regardless of Reagan they were going to fall sooner or later with or without our intervention. But because of our fear we started intervening in other nations affairs. The results were the Korean War (the first illegal war fought after WWII because congress never declared war), Vietnam, and today’s War on Terror.
Muslims are not inherently evil, they don’t grow up from the cradle thinking “let’s kill America.” We need to realize that people in the Middle East are just regular people who, like us, if provoked, will backlash. Answer this seriously, if China had a military base here in the States how would we respond? Now say that base is built on top of Arlington Cemetery? How would we respond? We’d be pissed, as we should be, but we never take the time to wonder how Muslims may react if we have troops in their countries on their holey sights. Like it or not Saudi Arabia is the holy land for Muslims and to have western troops there is considered an insult to their religion. It makes it that much easier for people like Osama (who we supplied with weapons during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, yet another reason for none interventionism) to recute people for his cause. He doesn’t simply say “westerners are evil and must be killed” no, to gain supporters all he has to do is point to western involvement in the Middle East.
Non intervention has always been an option. Let’s take a look at WWI and WWII to see where non intervention would have worked for the better. If the nations of Europe had practiced non intervention WWI as we know it would have been nothing more than a small irrelevant boarder war between Austria and Serbia, but thanks to alliances Russia intervened, which made France intervene, which made Germany intervene, on and on until millions are dead. The US really had no business being in that war but we got involved anyway. Germany lost because of our intervention and the extremely harsh treaty of Versailles was forced upon Germany. That treaty “planted the seeds of discontent” which would ultimately sprout in what we know as the Second World War Now had we not gotten involved the war might have ended in a truce, the Germans could have won (which really isn’t a bad thing at all, the Germans in WWI were not some evil empire trying to take over the world, and probably would have been more lenient on its defeated enemies then France was to them) or the end result could have been the same, but either way US intervention didn’t make anything any better for anyone.
“I wish this were not so, but the very real threats that face our nation today cannot be ignored or treated as isolated episodes that we have no business “intervening in”. To take this stance is to invite the utter destruction of our nation. Who will fight the war to subdue your enemies so that this modern day Utopia you hope for may be birthed? Our founding fathers laid the foundations for your hopes by fighting a war: It was called The American Revolution.”
Many of the threats we face today are results of our intervention in the world. For instance do you ever wonder why Iran hates us so much? It’s easy to see why when you learn that we overthrew a democratic government that was sweet with the soviets for a dictatorship that was more pro western. The result? The overthrow of our pro western government and the mess we have today. Why are they building nukes? Easy, its not because they wish to nuke New York, they are just scared silly that we might invade. We have troops on all sides of them, and have invaded nations for less (Iraq anyone?) so would it not be in their best interest to seek some better weapons? If MaCain wins we very well could end up in a war with Iran. Plus they see what we did with North Korea when they had nukes, we gave them fuel. So we help out nations because of weapons they do have, but when it comes to nations that might have some or might someday have them we simply attack. So, if you’re Iran, what would you do? If I were them, I’d try to build a nuke ASAP.
And let’s not confuse non intervention with pacifism. Its not the same thing, not by a long shot. For there to be a just war there are a set of guidelines that must be followed that almost every moral philosopher agrees on.
1) It has to be an act of self defense. No wars of aggression.
2) All means of diplomacy must have been exhausted and failed.
3) The proper authorities must declare the war.
This doesn’t mean you can’t fight a war, it simply lays out the guidelines for doing so in order to not end up fighting stupid and immoral wars. Now look at this closely and you’ll see that none of the wars we’ve fought since WWII live up to these standards. In the US only Congress may declare war, and that has not happened since WWII. The present war isn’t consistent with any of these, since it was not in self defense and diplomacy had not yet failed.
The point is that non intervention doesn’t mean you can’t go to war, what it means is that if we DO go to war we do it the right way, not willy nilly like we’ve done for years. It’s supposed to be a big deal to send troops into battle, but these days it’s treated as simply a matter of fact. Don’t like this nation? No problem, just use your US army visa card and take it out. And as to your question on who will defend this nation, I believe I will as I plan on joining the Air Force early next year. So yeah, I take defense seriously, but our troops deserve better than being the answer to every problem we have around the world.
“For as surely as the fathers invoked “non-intervention” policies as a tenant of their foreign policy, they were equally prepared to defend the United States from threats abroad. “
Good, you see then that non intervention doesn’t mean you are a pacifist, only that we shouldn’t be telling other nations what to do all the time.
“Our policy, however, angered both sides. It nearly caused a war with France, and contributed to one with Britian - The War of 1812 - where the British, once more on American soil, burned Washington, DC.”
Sure, when we don’t do what other nations want we might get them angry at us, that doesn’t mean though that we should just give in and do what they say. Funny though how Britain and the US have switched sides over the last couple hindered years.
“The Monroe Doctrine advanced the right of the United States to take action of both defense and deterrence, in the face of European intervention in North America and the Caribbean Basin, and if memory serves me, the Western Hemisphere as a whole.”
The Monroe Doctrine was nothing more than a good sounding policy that meant almost nothing. If a European nation really wanted to create new colonies in America we would not have been able to stop it. But by this time Europe had pretty much been kicked out and given a bloody nose so the threat of them coming back was small.
“Had we not done so, Germany who was eyeing the prize, was fully prepared to step in. Had they succeeded, they would likely have risen in might and power to a level that might have changed the outcome of World War I.”
I have to ask, why would it have been so bad if Germany had won WWI? They weren’t the evil nation they were in WWII, they were just like all the other major powers of that time, so why does it even matter to us who won? If we never got involved we would have had no stake in it. Besides, where does this “right” to intervene in Latin America come from? Just because Roosevelt said we had it doesn’t make it so.
· Every nation, including the United States, has the right of "self-preservation". The principle of self-preservation underlies the Monroe Doctrine. The primary purpose of the Doctrine was to protect Latin American nations from intervention by European powers, not to victimize or oppress Latin American nations.
So, European intervention bad, US intervention on the other hand okay. See a problem here? Hey it’s great for us, but how has it worked out for Latin America? Yeah, and we wonder why people there hate us so much.
“On a side note: I feel no need to go in depth over what led us into either of the World Wars. In both we tried to exercise “non-intervention”. The sinking of the ocean liner “Lusitania” by Germany in 1916 began to draw us into World War I, and in the midst of a "non-intervention" policy the attack on Pearl Harbor thrust us front line into World War II.”
We should never have been involved in WWI at all. The Lusitania was BRITISH ocean liner and was carrying military weapons to England. Germany had every right to sink it because of this. Also, prior to the sinking the German government posted adds in American newspapers warning Americans that ships going near England would be sunk. Any person that went to England in a time of war was going at their own risk.
WWII may not have happened had we not intervened in WWI, but that’s for alternate history writers to figure out. When it comes to WWII though there are reasons why Japan attacked us.
1) They wanted the Philippians, which isn’t a very noble goal, but we wouldn’t have had the Philippians had it not been for the Spanish American War, which was an unjust war as well. It would have been Spain’s problem, not ours.
2) We cut off their oil. Once again, great intentions, but it did provoke an attack.
Now I’m not saying we were responsible for the attacks, Japan’s ambition and lust for power was the main responsibility, but there were reasons and many of those reasons rest in past interventionism. Plus, don’t forget we didn’t declare war on Germany after the attacks, we only declared war on them AFTER they declared war on us.
The point is that non intervention is not to be blamed for WWI and WWII.
“So there is a bit of historical backdrop on how we evolved from pioneers who founded a country, to protectors of our great nation. Our founding fathers never advocated the role of "non-intervention" in the face of threats to our national security. They advocated non-intervention when appropriate, and a firm stance of national defense and self preservation when circumstances dictated. “
Great, but that’s not what the Republicans want. Republicans LOVE to fight wars these days, even when there is no real reason to. Iraq is simply the best example. You can’t honestly say the Republicans follow these beliefs because of what they’ve done when it comes to war. On the other hand, this is EXACTLY what Ron Paul and the Libertarian party represent. Neither would hesitate when it comes to defending this nation, Ron Paul voted for the war in Afghanistan just like everyone else, so he’s not completely anti war, but he voted against the Iraq war. Why? It didn’t have anything to do with national security and was simply getting us into another useless war. Seems like we was right. So let me say again, Libertarians are NOT pacifists, but we don’t believe war to be the first solution to every problem. War makes more problems than it solves.
“They have brought us through two world wars and a cold war that would have destroyed a lesser nation. In so doing, they delivered not only our nation, but millions worldwide, from death and tyranny at the hands of evil men such as Stalin and Hitler. “
We defeated Hitler because he declared war on us, not because of some sense of duty to our fellow man. Remember that our mission in Germany was to defeat the Nazis, not save the Jews. And we never freed anyone from Stalin, we were ALLIES with him if you remember, and he died of old age still killing millions of his people. Communism destroyed the USSR, not us. We may have lit the spark, but they were already soaked in gasoline.
“And they have enabled us to promote worldwide, the freedom and liberty we so cherish. That very significantly lessens the threat to our own nation, and free societies everywhere, from those who advance tyranny as a way of life. To do less, would be to watch tyranny lay claim to the worldwide neighborhood and still expect to remain independant and free. Mr. Rogers is no match for "Dear Leader" Kim Jong and Mayberry will not survive unmolested and at peace beside the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge.”
Tell me how teaching people to hate the freest nation in the world in any way promotes freedom. We fought a war for liberty, France did as well with no outside help, how is it then a foregone conclusion that without our help freedom around the world would die? We must stand as an example to the world of what a great society is, not get bogged down in stupid wars. And let’s not make the mistake of thinking that the Iraq war was in any way fought to promote freedom. Plus we never ousted Kim Jong Ill and didn’t stop the killing of the Khmer Rouge, so how can you use those as examples? We’re still here despite that.
So, in closing, if you REALLY do love peace, I can see no way you can support the present Republican party who fights undeclared wars for faulty reasoning without satisfying the conditions of a just war. Are you a supporter of the Iraq war? If so do you think our founding fathers would have invaded a small third world country because they suspected they might possibly have WMD’s? Somehow I doubt it. I see the need for defense, which is why I plan on joining the military, but I think we should only fight wars in, ahh, defense. What a concept.
Here is the link to her blog.
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/share/profiles/?slid=e29258e5-b455-ccf4-95c6-804ffe421b9c&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=e29258e5-b455-ccf4-95c6-804ffe421b9c&plckPostId=Blog%3ae29258e5-b455-ccf4-95c6-804ffe421b9cPost%3a34eaef64-3836-4e7f-9447-d5b67b8919bd&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest
“I suppose because you don’t know me, and I am a Republican, you probably picture me as some pasty white, blue haired old lady, cloaking herself in tawdry red Republican Party attire.”
Naw, I have nothing against Republicans and I try my best not to lump everyone into a single Cleche. My problem is with the party, but the people who call themselves Republicans for the most part are very decent people. My parents are Republican, most of my friends are, so I have a very high opinion of most Republicans I know, even if I don’t agree with you on a lot of issues.
“I am with you in spirit, but I am a Republican because I cannot leave my country open and vulnerable, naked to the whims of our enemies, without a realistic plan for National Security, and foreign policy as a whole.”
Foreign policy is always what turns people off to Libertarianism, and I think its probably the biggest misconception about the party and system of beliefs. People get none interventionism and isolatism confused, but if you really believe in small government then none intervention is a logical conclusion, although albeit not the only one. The premise of small government is, to me at least, to keep governments too small to interfere in our daily lives. I don’t want the feds coming in and telling me, or my state, how to run my life. But if our government doesn’t have the right to tell the states and people within its boarders how to behave, what right does it have to tell OTHER nations and the people outside out boarders how to behave? The government that can impose its will upon other nations is one that can also impose its will upon its own people.
“It is not realistic in the time we live in, to expect to live in a Utopia, where what I hear you all calling ‘non-intervention’ is an option. “
No one’s calling for utopia. I have not heard anyone say that if we take a non interventionist policy that all of a sudden the world would be at peace and unicorns will frolic through the meadows. No one is saying that. What we ARE saying, however, is that non interventionism would make our nation much safer then it is as of right now. Where would we be right now if we hadn’t forced our will upon other nations? Look, you can talk about the soviets all you want, but Reagan didn’t bring them down, communism did, and regardless of Reagan they were going to fall sooner or later with or without our intervention. But because of our fear we started intervening in other nations affairs. The results were the Korean War (the first illegal war fought after WWII because congress never declared war), Vietnam, and today’s War on Terror.
Muslims are not inherently evil, they don’t grow up from the cradle thinking “let’s kill America.” We need to realize that people in the Middle East are just regular people who, like us, if provoked, will backlash. Answer this seriously, if China had a military base here in the States how would we respond? Now say that base is built on top of Arlington Cemetery? How would we respond? We’d be pissed, as we should be, but we never take the time to wonder how Muslims may react if we have troops in their countries on their holey sights. Like it or not Saudi Arabia is the holy land for Muslims and to have western troops there is considered an insult to their religion. It makes it that much easier for people like Osama (who we supplied with weapons during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, yet another reason for none interventionism) to recute people for his cause. He doesn’t simply say “westerners are evil and must be killed” no, to gain supporters all he has to do is point to western involvement in the Middle East.
Non intervention has always been an option. Let’s take a look at WWI and WWII to see where non intervention would have worked for the better. If the nations of Europe had practiced non intervention WWI as we know it would have been nothing more than a small irrelevant boarder war between Austria and Serbia, but thanks to alliances Russia intervened, which made France intervene, which made Germany intervene, on and on until millions are dead. The US really had no business being in that war but we got involved anyway. Germany lost because of our intervention and the extremely harsh treaty of Versailles was forced upon Germany. That treaty “planted the seeds of discontent” which would ultimately sprout in what we know as the Second World War Now had we not gotten involved the war might have ended in a truce, the Germans could have won (which really isn’t a bad thing at all, the Germans in WWI were not some evil empire trying to take over the world, and probably would have been more lenient on its defeated enemies then France was to them) or the end result could have been the same, but either way US intervention didn’t make anything any better for anyone.
“I wish this were not so, but the very real threats that face our nation today cannot be ignored or treated as isolated episodes that we have no business “intervening in”. To take this stance is to invite the utter destruction of our nation. Who will fight the war to subdue your enemies so that this modern day Utopia you hope for may be birthed? Our founding fathers laid the foundations for your hopes by fighting a war: It was called The American Revolution.”
Many of the threats we face today are results of our intervention in the world. For instance do you ever wonder why Iran hates us so much? It’s easy to see why when you learn that we overthrew a democratic government that was sweet with the soviets for a dictatorship that was more pro western. The result? The overthrow of our pro western government and the mess we have today. Why are they building nukes? Easy, its not because they wish to nuke New York, they are just scared silly that we might invade. We have troops on all sides of them, and have invaded nations for less (Iraq anyone?) so would it not be in their best interest to seek some better weapons? If MaCain wins we very well could end up in a war with Iran. Plus they see what we did with North Korea when they had nukes, we gave them fuel. So we help out nations because of weapons they do have, but when it comes to nations that might have some or might someday have them we simply attack. So, if you’re Iran, what would you do? If I were them, I’d try to build a nuke ASAP.
And let’s not confuse non intervention with pacifism. Its not the same thing, not by a long shot. For there to be a just war there are a set of guidelines that must be followed that almost every moral philosopher agrees on.
1) It has to be an act of self defense. No wars of aggression.
2) All means of diplomacy must have been exhausted and failed.
3) The proper authorities must declare the war.
This doesn’t mean you can’t fight a war, it simply lays out the guidelines for doing so in order to not end up fighting stupid and immoral wars. Now look at this closely and you’ll see that none of the wars we’ve fought since WWII live up to these standards. In the US only Congress may declare war, and that has not happened since WWII. The present war isn’t consistent with any of these, since it was not in self defense and diplomacy had not yet failed.
The point is that non intervention doesn’t mean you can’t go to war, what it means is that if we DO go to war we do it the right way, not willy nilly like we’ve done for years. It’s supposed to be a big deal to send troops into battle, but these days it’s treated as simply a matter of fact. Don’t like this nation? No problem, just use your US army visa card and take it out. And as to your question on who will defend this nation, I believe I will as I plan on joining the Air Force early next year. So yeah, I take defense seriously, but our troops deserve better than being the answer to every problem we have around the world.
“For as surely as the fathers invoked “non-intervention” policies as a tenant of their foreign policy, they were equally prepared to defend the United States from threats abroad. “
Good, you see then that non intervention doesn’t mean you are a pacifist, only that we shouldn’t be telling other nations what to do all the time.
“Our policy, however, angered both sides. It nearly caused a war with France, and contributed to one with Britian - The War of 1812 - where the British, once more on American soil, burned Washington, DC.”
Sure, when we don’t do what other nations want we might get them angry at us, that doesn’t mean though that we should just give in and do what they say. Funny though how Britain and the US have switched sides over the last couple hindered years.
“The Monroe Doctrine advanced the right of the United States to take action of both defense and deterrence, in the face of European intervention in North America and the Caribbean Basin, and if memory serves me, the Western Hemisphere as a whole.”
The Monroe Doctrine was nothing more than a good sounding policy that meant almost nothing. If a European nation really wanted to create new colonies in America we would not have been able to stop it. But by this time Europe had pretty much been kicked out and given a bloody nose so the threat of them coming back was small.
“Had we not done so, Germany who was eyeing the prize, was fully prepared to step in. Had they succeeded, they would likely have risen in might and power to a level that might have changed the outcome of World War I.”
I have to ask, why would it have been so bad if Germany had won WWI? They weren’t the evil nation they were in WWII, they were just like all the other major powers of that time, so why does it even matter to us who won? If we never got involved we would have had no stake in it. Besides, where does this “right” to intervene in Latin America come from? Just because Roosevelt said we had it doesn’t make it so.
· Every nation, including the United States, has the right of "self-preservation". The principle of self-preservation underlies the Monroe Doctrine. The primary purpose of the Doctrine was to protect Latin American nations from intervention by European powers, not to victimize or oppress Latin American nations.
So, European intervention bad, US intervention on the other hand okay. See a problem here? Hey it’s great for us, but how has it worked out for Latin America? Yeah, and we wonder why people there hate us so much.
“On a side note: I feel no need to go in depth over what led us into either of the World Wars. In both we tried to exercise “non-intervention”. The sinking of the ocean liner “Lusitania” by Germany in 1916 began to draw us into World War I, and in the midst of a "non-intervention" policy the attack on Pearl Harbor thrust us front line into World War II.”
We should never have been involved in WWI at all. The Lusitania was BRITISH ocean liner and was carrying military weapons to England. Germany had every right to sink it because of this. Also, prior to the sinking the German government posted adds in American newspapers warning Americans that ships going near England would be sunk. Any person that went to England in a time of war was going at their own risk.
WWII may not have happened had we not intervened in WWI, but that’s for alternate history writers to figure out. When it comes to WWII though there are reasons why Japan attacked us.
1) They wanted the Philippians, which isn’t a very noble goal, but we wouldn’t have had the Philippians had it not been for the Spanish American War, which was an unjust war as well. It would have been Spain’s problem, not ours.
2) We cut off their oil. Once again, great intentions, but it did provoke an attack.
Now I’m not saying we were responsible for the attacks, Japan’s ambition and lust for power was the main responsibility, but there were reasons and many of those reasons rest in past interventionism. Plus, don’t forget we didn’t declare war on Germany after the attacks, we only declared war on them AFTER they declared war on us.
The point is that non intervention is not to be blamed for WWI and WWII.
“So there is a bit of historical backdrop on how we evolved from pioneers who founded a country, to protectors of our great nation. Our founding fathers never advocated the role of "non-intervention" in the face of threats to our national security. They advocated non-intervention when appropriate, and a firm stance of national defense and self preservation when circumstances dictated. “
Great, but that’s not what the Republicans want. Republicans LOVE to fight wars these days, even when there is no real reason to. Iraq is simply the best example. You can’t honestly say the Republicans follow these beliefs because of what they’ve done when it comes to war. On the other hand, this is EXACTLY what Ron Paul and the Libertarian party represent. Neither would hesitate when it comes to defending this nation, Ron Paul voted for the war in Afghanistan just like everyone else, so he’s not completely anti war, but he voted against the Iraq war. Why? It didn’t have anything to do with national security and was simply getting us into another useless war. Seems like we was right. So let me say again, Libertarians are NOT pacifists, but we don’t believe war to be the first solution to every problem. War makes more problems than it solves.
“They have brought us through two world wars and a cold war that would have destroyed a lesser nation. In so doing, they delivered not only our nation, but millions worldwide, from death and tyranny at the hands of evil men such as Stalin and Hitler. “
We defeated Hitler because he declared war on us, not because of some sense of duty to our fellow man. Remember that our mission in Germany was to defeat the Nazis, not save the Jews. And we never freed anyone from Stalin, we were ALLIES with him if you remember, and he died of old age still killing millions of his people. Communism destroyed the USSR, not us. We may have lit the spark, but they were already soaked in gasoline.
“And they have enabled us to promote worldwide, the freedom and liberty we so cherish. That very significantly lessens the threat to our own nation, and free societies everywhere, from those who advance tyranny as a way of life. To do less, would be to watch tyranny lay claim to the worldwide neighborhood and still expect to remain independant and free. Mr. Rogers is no match for "Dear Leader" Kim Jong and Mayberry will not survive unmolested and at peace beside the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge.”
Tell me how teaching people to hate the freest nation in the world in any way promotes freedom. We fought a war for liberty, France did as well with no outside help, how is it then a foregone conclusion that without our help freedom around the world would die? We must stand as an example to the world of what a great society is, not get bogged down in stupid wars. And let’s not make the mistake of thinking that the Iraq war was in any way fought to promote freedom. Plus we never ousted Kim Jong Ill and didn’t stop the killing of the Khmer Rouge, so how can you use those as examples? We’re still here despite that.
So, in closing, if you REALLY do love peace, I can see no way you can support the present Republican party who fights undeclared wars for faulty reasoning without satisfying the conditions of a just war. Are you a supporter of the Iraq war? If so do you think our founding fathers would have invaded a small third world country because they suspected they might possibly have WMD’s? Somehow I doubt it. I see the need for defense, which is why I plan on joining the military, but I think we should only fight wars in, ahh, defense. What a concept.
No comments:
Post a Comment