Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
Problem was...The North ultimately "won" and the parties reconciled...
Slap and I agree, grudgingly, with the first part, not with the second!
As to "fixing other peoples problems" that is never what I have stood for.
That may be true but you often seem to advocate our entry into disputes in this manner:
Sometimes such parties, particularly those with a tremendous disparity of legal power, need a more powerful 3rd party to act as Mediator or even Arbitrator. To provide the balance, trust and protection that the current imbalance Denys. To empower the parties to have the conversation that their current position and recent actions prevent. This is not dictating to others HOW they should govern.
When you advocate our participation -- or unilateral action -- in such cases, that is in every sense interference in the affairs of others.

When you follow that sort of idea with this:
It is in our current COA that we do that (without much success though, making us look weak. We demand that bad governments improve womens rights, become more democratic, etc and they ignore us and we continue to protect them anyway out of fear for what might happen if they nationalize some oil facility, raise their prices, favor the Chinese, close access to a LOC or port, etc.) The US far too often looks impotent over the issue of making moral demands on others that our own fiscal and security fears prevent us from backing up. That is not a smart approach to foreign policy.
You are advocating a course or courses of action in accordance with your personal beliefs and thus you, in appearance if not in fact, are opting for "fixing other peoples problems" and in a certain way at thaty.

As you say:
Either don't make the demands, or be willing to back them up if you do. Pick one.
That may not be advocating undue interference in the affairs of others but it sure comes terribly close...

Thus, you may not intend to advocate "fixing other peoples problems" but your words IMO imply otherwise, often quite strongly. Add that IMO, your words often appear to recommend, suggest or demand (it varies from post to post) that such 'fixing' be in accordance with your -- or general enlightened Western -- precepts which in the opinion of many others may not be desirable or even feasible. That "51st State" comment by Omar applies...

On your understanding of the 'Founding Fathers and the Document they wrought:
1. They grew up oppressed (mildly at times) second class citizens of their own King and kingdom.
That's not really true. They were second class citizens due to the vagaries of human nature -- it's noteworthy that in the eyes of many current Europeans, Americans of today are generally accorded Second Class (if not Third Class... ) status. Indeed, in the eyes of some Americans today, other Americans are lesser beings (that's a broad brush with much and varied applicability...). IOW, the 'status' was a vagary of human nature as much as it was anything. Most of the myths spread by the Sons of Liberty et.al. were just that, myths. The protests against tax and tax policies had some merit but it was quite similar to today's crowd who want the deficit chopped, taxes not increased -- while all the 'entitlements' remain untouched or are increased. People are selfish. The British had a right to ask the Colonies to pay for their own defense, the fact they went about it in a ham handed way doesn't eliminate the selfishness of the Colonists -- and the quest for power -- of those "oppressed" Citizens.
2. They became subversives, and then Insurgents to throw off that government that they felt to be illegitimate ("no island should rule a continent"), unjust, disrespectful, and that denied any legal recourse to their reasonable complaints. These were the the wealthy, landed, ruling class of a people enjoying the highest standard of living on Earth at that time. And they became insurgents, engaging in illegal politics, betting everything they owned (their reputations, their wealth, and their very lives) over the powerful human nature factors of causation at work.
In assigning causation to the American Revolution, one should ponder at great length the juxtaposition of the words "disrespectful" and "wealthy, landed, ruling class of a people."
3. Then, from the day of the surrender at Yorktown, they became Counterinsurgents ... This was genius COIN.
The problem with having a hammer is that every problem must resemble a nail. The problem with the belief that one has the only correct answers to 'insurgency' is that one tends to see every problem as an insurgency, incipient or otherwise.

Sometimes a Constitution is just a reasonably well designed document of governance produced by folks who are willing to compromise to achieve a solution that will work for the good of most -- rarely possible to get to all -- people as they see it at the time...

As an Attorney, you will appreciate the Scottish verdict (and the legal subtleties thereunto pertaining) of this humble juror: Not Proven