[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Radar

My reading of the Constitution is exactly as it was written by our founders and my positions are the same as theirs. Stop using "foreign policy" as a euphemism for "starting unprovoked and unconstitutional wars". War is not foreign policy. War is what happens when foreign policy fails. I've already given irrefutable proof that this war is unconstitutional, you're just too dim witted and thickheaded to admit that this is what they Constitution says.

Correction: what you want the Constitution to say. Good luck with getting those Amendments passed. It appears I have a wider view of foreign policy than you do -- for is it not so that diplomacy is the pleasanter end of foreign policy, and that war is the nasty end? I'll go with Bismarck's remark that war is politics by other means. He could just as well have said foreign policy.

No, no irrefutable proof is visible, not to anyone. You have neglected that important point. I might point out that no one here seems to remember your doing it and I certainly don't see any links.

Originally Posted by Radar

Libertarian is spread by example, not by force. The initiation of force (especially for political gain) is the exact opposite of libertarianism.

I'm dithering here between "good luck with that," or simply remarking "IOW, it is not being spread at all." They're just both such good responses. You've still got to outthink and outpunch the tyrants who are guaranteed to raise some objection or other, and we all know what tyrants' objections look like. If you try it radar's way in these environments, all the libertarians die.

Originally Posted by Radar

It grants ONLY congress the power to make war. It says the president BECOMES the commander in chief WHEN CALLED UPON by a declaration of war.

Funny, isn't it, that you aren't showing that with the relevant Constitutional text, isn't it? Got any proof, or not? We shall see, won't we? Every single historical precedent is against you, you know. The Supreme Court would not be alone in telling you to take your case, fold it, spindle it, and insert it. The Executive and Legislative Branches would no doubt join the chorus, along with those of us who can't exactly find a downside to removing fascist Ba'athists and replacing them with practicing democrats. What's wrong with your approach is it amounts to "Leave Tyrants Alone." Nonlibertarian in the extreme, I should think.

It defines and limits the role of our military as being solely for the common DEFENSE of America.

As a practical matter, defense of America has never been distinguishable from defense of American interests, wherever they may be. In the era of globalization, these are even more inextricably intertwined.

Originally Posted by Radar

He's a stupid, gutless, filthy, little weasel who keeps trying to rewrite history and re-define the English language to his own liking.

And this rantlet shows superior intellect and character how?

The guy who confuses Republicans with Nazis, or tries to get others so confused, hasn't persuaded me as to the excellence of his understanding. Radar, I very much doubt you understand that last sentence, for I know your mind. You're starting to sound like a sockpuppet for tw, of all people to have the hand of pushed all the way up yours.