George Washington Had It Right - by Charley Reese

[babagrr]

May 29, 2006

Have you ever thought how peaceful and prosperous we would be if our national leaders had followed the advice of George Washington in his "
Farewell Address"? http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

For starters, we would not be hopelessly in debt, and there would not be so many Americans buried in national cemeteries and in distant lands. Nor would
we be as hated as we are today in so many countries, where new polls show people not only dislike American foreign policy and the American government,
but are now deciding they don't like the American people.

Washington's recommended policy can be summed up as armed neutrality, the same policy Switzerland practices. While the rest of the world participated in
a slaughterhouse during the 20th century, the Swiss remained at peace.

Washington was a very wise man. He said that no country can be trusted beyond its own self-interests. He said that habitual friendship toward a foreign
country is as dangerous as habitual enmity. The policy of America should be trade with all but entangling alliances with nobody. The quarrels and vendettas
in other parts of the world were none of our business, he said. As far as trade goes, all countries should be treated equal, with no favors granted to
any of them.

He warned against foreign influence, calling it a poison to republican government. While he was no doubt thinking of the French, his advice applies to Israel.
No foreign country should be allowed to influence American policy because that country will always seek to influence policy to favor its interests, not
ours. If we followed Washington's advice, the only thing we would be sending to the Middle East would be oil tankers and tourists.

We could build a military force that could deter attacks on this country for a fraction of the cost we spend on trying to maintain an empire with about
745 military bases in 120 foreign countries. The only people who might attack us are a gang of terrorists, and, of course, our massive military machine
is not equipped to deal with them.

As for domestic policy, Washington said the best way to preserve the union was to obey the Constitution and to never tolerate any branch of government usurping
the Constitution's power. He said that a republican form of government required a virtuous people, and since religion is the best way to instill virtue
in the masses, anybody who was an enemy of religion was an enemy of republican government.

All of that is pointless now, because we no longer have a republic – or a virtuous population, for that matter. We have an empire. We have a federal government
that does nothing more than pay lip service to the Constitution, if that. Elections are decided by money, not by the people. Greed, self-indulgence, and
commercial entertainment seem to be the main motivations of a goodly number of our people. We will, as all empires have, bleed ourselves in foreign wars
and domestic tyranny until we collapse. President Bush is a heck of a lot closer to Nero than he is to George Washington.

Too bad, because we could be such a happy place if we had sense enough to mind our own business and to elect men and women who would obey the Constitution.
We have no legal authority, no moral authority, and certainly no divine authority to interfere with the internal affairs of any other nation. It should
not matter to us what kind of governments other people have or what their cultures are. There is nothing in the Constitution to authorize the federal government
to tax Americans and then write checks to foreign countries. There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the president to take us to war. That
is a power reserved exclusively to Congress. The Constitution also requires a warrant based on probable cause before the government can spy on us or search
our homes and businesses.

Americans ought to read their Constitution, if for no other reason than to see what kind of government they are missing. It's written in very plain English
and is easy to understand.

Source: = Antiwar.com

[catmando]

Great post baba :) When I was growing up in the '50s we learned a lot about our founding Fathers and their wisdom. George Washington was a truly great man who understood how countries can interact without violence and bloodshed.

[Joe98]

How would Washington have responded to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour?

-

[Hawa]

How would Washington have responded to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour?

-

well HAD he been around..the attack would have never occured (just going with the article)

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Joe98]

well HAD he been around..the attack would have never occured

Thats right, if he had been around, the US would have remained silent about the Japanese slaughter of the Chinese people, there would have been no oil embargo on the Japanese and no Pearl Harbour.

Even more Chinese would have been slaughtered.

-

[Hawa]

Thats right, if he had been around, the US would have remained silent about the Japanese slaughter of the Chinese people, there would have been no oil embargo on the Japanese and no Pearl Harbour.

Even more Chinese would have been slaughtered.

-

lol now thats jokes for you!
Americans dont give a hoot about dead Chinese or anyone else for that matter.. where was your bleeding heart when thousands of Rwandese were slaughtered? when millions of Palestinians were killed? where or where?

[Joe98]

.....when thousands of Rwandese were slaughtered?

And where were the Arab armies?

Where were the Arab armies when Muslims were being killed in Bosnia? Only the Western armies sent troops to stop the slaughter. The Mulsim world sent nobody.

[Skillganon]

And where were the Arab armies?

Where were the Arab armies when Muslims were being killed in Bosnia? Only the Western armies sent troops to stop the slaughter. The Mulsim world sent nobody.

Because their is no muslim army par se, their is a national army that are in the whim of their goverment. The Goverment is usually allied to the whim of some other men, or usually the leader of the goverment is currupt. It's all about mantaining power, not helping other people unless it serves their interest, meaning they can get something out of it. but I do give you credit for saying this and I too wonder where is the muslim ummah, forget the goverment!

[catmando]

Thats right, if he had been around, the US would have remained silent about the Japanese slaughter of the Chinese people, there would have been no oil embargo on the Japanese and no Pearl Harbour.

Even more Chinese would have been slaughtered.-

It is very likely that Washington would have signed a treaty with Japan as he did with the Treaty of Tripoli, in which case Japan would have been our ally against the Axis.

[Joe98]

in which case Japan would have been our ally against the Axis.

How do you figure that? If Washington were around there would have been no war with Germany either.

The Japanese already had an alliance with Germany.

Instead the Japanese would have taken Midway peacefully as part of the Washington agreement and attacked Malaysia and Indonesia for their rubber and oil.

And then into India next.

The US could have sold engines to all the warring parties on an equal footing as per the Washington doctrine in the first post above.

[catmando]

How do you figure that? If Washington were around there would have been no war with Germany either.

The Japanese already had an alliance with Germany.

Instead the Japanese would have taken Midway peacefully as part of the Washington agreement and attacked Malaysia and Indonesia for their rubber and oil.

And then into India next.

The US could have sold engines to all the warring parties on an equal footing as per the Washington doctrine in the first post above.

You presume too much. Times change, and great leaders change with them. There is no way to know what he would have done before WW2, but one thing is for sure; Washington would NEVER have put this country or its interests in jeopardy by turning his back on world conflict.

George Washington was the greatest man this nation ever produced. He had the chance to declare himself President while still Commanding General of the Revolutionary Army, but he resigned his commission instead. Napoleon didn't do that. Ceasar didn't do that. Stalin didn't. Mao didn't.

Washington chose Democracy over militarism. So did Dwight Eisenhower, the only Republican I ever would have voted for.

[Templar Knight]

You presume too much. Times change, and great leaders change with them. There is no way to know what he would have done before WW2, but one thing is for sure; Washington would NEVER have put this country or its interests in jeopardy by turning his back on world conflict.

George Washington was the greatest man this nation ever produced. He had the chance to declare himself President while still Commanding General of the Revolutionary Army, but he resigned his commission instead. Napoleon didn't do that. Ceasar didn't do that. Stalin didn't. Mao didn't.

Washington chose Democracy over militarism. So did Dwight Eisenhower, the only Republican I ever would have voted for.

You wouldn't have voted for Lincoln? Wow that's a bold statement.

[catmando]

You wouldn't have voted for Lincoln? Wow that's a bold statement.

Boy I really got mixed up there. Washington was a Whig. Lincoln founded the Republican party.

Thanks for pointing that out.:embarrass