This is a snippet from George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address to all of his fellow American patriots:
And to think that we as late "patriots" let traitors from within abolish Washington's birthday as a holiday. Shameful, Unforgivable, and being proven deadly to our republic. What meaning of the government's afterthought of appending "...in accordance with its constitutional processes" to each treaty is meant to imply is your own guess as the Constution hasn't been obeyed for decades. Maybe it's just in case they throw it in as a stopgap to snuff out public furor to appear "lawful"? Not moral mind you, just 'ethical'.
...As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
You are seeing Washington's warnings being ignored as we plunge into unpayable debt to carry out perpetual wars under the unproven excuse of defense, but instead under obligatory signatories under foreign entanglements.
I had never fully read his Farewell Address in its entirety, but I assure you the solutions for our ills today are scribed therein. Read it.
Would you put your life or that of your family on the line for a neighbor? Answer: Maybe. To do so would have to be a threat of injury, death, or property loss threat from a person or element unfamiliar to us or unknown by the neighbor. Family and friend disputes, arguments are not our business. Pull down the blinds and turn off the lights. Any efforts at aid from us would have to be in response for a threat outside the law as we understand it, and decided at time of occurrence.We could expect our neighbors to respond in likekind should our family come under threat. We don't need a paper compact between us. It's just what neighbors are expected to do.
Can you identify the country of this western hemisphere that is not a part of any US defense treaty - why?
U.S. Collective Defense Arrangements
NORTH ATLANTIC TREATYA treaty signed April 4, 1949, by which the Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and each of them will assist the attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.
PARTIES: United States, Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
A Treaty signed September 1, 1951, whereby each of the parties
recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the
Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that
it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND
PARTIES: United States , Australia, New Zealand
PHILIPPINE TREATY (Bilateral)A treaty signed August 30, 1951, by which the parties recognize that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and each party agrees that it will act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes.
PARTIES: United States, Philippines
SOUTHEAST ASIA TREATYA treaty signed September 8, 1954, whereby each party recognizes that aggression by means of armed attack in the treaty area against any of the Parties would endanger its own peace and safety and each will in that event act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.
PARTIES: United States , Australia, France, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, and the United Kingdom
JAPANESE TREATY (Bilateral)A treaty signed January 19, 1960, whereby each party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes. The treaty replaced the security treaty signed September 8, 1951.
PARTIES: United States, Japan
REPUBLIC OF KOREA TREATY (Bilateral)A treaty signed October 1, 1953, whereby each party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and that each Party would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.
PARTIES: United States, Korea
These are countries we have placed our survival upon to stand by our side if attacked by foreign power: