| Are American taxpayers financially responsible to defend Syrians? [message #109885] |
Mon, 09 September 2013 11:00 |
CyberkNight
Messages: 1606
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
One day after President Obama indicated he would seek a vote from Congress on whether to launch missile strikes against Syria, media outlets have already begun reporting on the debate from a number of perspectives. As usual, one perspective is completely ignored: that of the American taxpayer.
The Constitution grants Congress the power to tax U.S. citizens to provide for the common defense of U.S. citizens, not every soul on the planet. The only exception is for citizens in countries with whom the United States has signed a mutual defense treaty. In those situations, it is assumed that American taxpayers get a reasonably equal benefit back in defense provided to them.
The founders still told us to avoid those alliances whenever possible.
Regardless, the United States has no treaty with Syria. If it did, it would be with the Assad government, not with rebels attempting to overthrow it. Syria has not attacked the United States nor issued a declaration of war against them. There isn't even a U.N. Security Council resolution for force against Syria, and strict constitutionalists don't recognize such a resolution as legitimate anyway.
President Obama is arguing for the United States to intervene militarily solely for "humanitarian" reasons. That begs the question, How did American taxpayers become financially responsible for protecting Syrian rebels and civilians?
Every other U.S. president has recognized that Americans can only be taxed to pay for their own defense or the defense of allies by treaty. The arguments haven't always been bulletproof, but at least they have acknowledged this principle.
President George W. Bush made his case for the Iraq War based upon Saddam Hussein's supposed "weapons of mass destruction." At one point, the administration went so far as to say that Hussein could strike the United States "within 45 minutes."
Why did the administration go to such lengths to exaggerate Iraq's capabilities? Because it recognized that only an imminent threat to American citizens would justify a war against Iraq.
"Operation Deliberate Force" in Serbia was recognized as a NATO operation, meaning the United States participated due to a supposed treaty obligation. President Clinton's attempts to conduct military operations in Africa and Haiti for humanitarian reasons were met with public and congressional opposition. Both interventions were aborted prior to prolonged involvement.
In Korea and Vietnam, Americans were told war was necessary to prevent "the domino effect," where one Asian nation after another would fall to communism, which then would spread to the rest of the world. The theory was proven wrong when North Vietnam took over South Vietnam and communism still failed. Still, the stated reason for war was to protect Americans from communist aggression.
President Obama has broken new ground. He has argued that not only does the U.S. government have the authority to tax Americans to defend every human being on the planet, but that the president can order military intervention for that reason on his authority alone.
Full article: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawaken ing-liberty/2013/sep/1/why-are-american-taxpayers-financiall y-responsible/
Megalextoria
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
