Our security rests on U.S. power and will, and not on whether Zimbabwe, Sudan, Syria, Cuba or even China is ruled by tyrants. Our forefathers lived secure in a world of tyrannies by staying out of wars that were none of America's business. As for "the end of tyranny in our world," Mr. President, sorry, that doesn't come in "our world." That comes in the next.

If America is angry over what interventionism and free trade have wrought, George Bush cannot credibly blame isolationists or protectionists. These fellows have an alibi. They were nowhere near the scene of the crime.

Full Article

When I stated in another thread that Arabic (and, for all intents and purposes, Islamic) values and the West were bound to collide and needed to be dealt with "one way or the other," I did mean interventionalism. I did not mean, however, that it was the only option on the table.

I can't remember who it was but on Chris Matthews' Hardball today a man brought up the point that, as of right now, we can't do a ton in regard to Iran, since they'll simply stop the petroleum from flowing and leave our economy open to a recession.

Our dependence on foreign resources is dictating our foreign policy to the point that we have to be involved with what is taking place in other regions of the world not by choice but by necessity.

The sooner we are not dependent on foreign resources, the sooner we can leave and let them decide on their own just who they want to rule over them. If they want a backward government, let them have it.

I'm pretty mixed on free trade versus protectionism. On one hand, I think a consumer should be able to purchase the best product available on the market without the government artificially adjusting prices.

On the other hand, I hate to see US jobs going bye-bye.