I can’t go there

I can’t go to the non-interventionist position shared by the Ron Paul advocates at Saturday’s caucus. Just can’t do it. I can’t really fathom full blown isolationism either, but at least with those blinders on we wouldn’t be profiting from a situation that we won’t enter into politically or militarily. But really I can’t see how anyone could go for either philosophy. Maybe it’s really only philosophy to the Paulians? When faced with a situation would they really be the priest or the Levite and pass by on the other side, or would they abandon their “philosophy” of non-interventionism and adopt the role of the Samaritan?

How was it, in pre WWI America, for new immigrants to our nation hearing about death and destruction in Europe, a home they only recently left? Thinking of distant friends and family suffering not only war, but the first wide spread use of chemicals such as mustard gas. How did they feel as business went on as usual, but their new country, our country, refused military assistance to Europe? Non-interventionism probably didn’t seem like a very right policy then. Thankfully, enough Americans had the compassion and sense to force the non-interventionists into helping their fellow man.

Wikipedia And just a decade or so later, how did non-interventionist Americans choke down doing business as usual with Japan? By supplying them through the 30’s, we were effectively enabling imperial Japan to brutally conquer China and much of the South Pacific. And in a different way the non-interventionist Americans stood by, but still did business with, Europe as they were overrun by Nazi Germany. Who knows how many lives would have been saved if we had simply quit supplying Japan earlier or intervened militarily in Europe a few years sooner? Thankfully FDR wouldn’t stand forever with either of these situations and America intervened. Many Americans died, but unknown countless lives must have been saved and I for one admire FDR’s interventionist attitude.

Sure the world we live in is messy, but no one is served, nor saved, by Americans pulling blankets over their heads hoping the monsters will simply disappear. They haven’t and they won’t. In his presidential campaign, Barack Obama is calling for change. For the sake of the world, let’s pray the change he is calling for isn’t to abandon our current foreign policy in favor of sadistic non-interventionism. Haven’t we seen enough suffering at the hand of that flawed policy? Non-interventionism doesn’t work and I can’t go there.

11 thoughts on “I can’t go there

  1. Dark as in pitch black; no. Much darker than now; yes. Tension is the result of opposing forces, so yes if we quit opposing Islamic extremism there would be less tension, but also more war, death and refugees. Look at a list or a map of world conflicts and you’ll find Islam in the majority. Equal forces in tension create balance. If we quit opposing Islam then the balance shifts in their favor. But we will be safe. And I’m sure that eventually another nation will pick up the cross. I hope they will be as decent towards the Islamic people as we are.

    There is a monstrously long list of interventions by the US into different areas of the world. It would take longer than I willing to devote to figure out which parties tended one way or another in each. I’m going to agree with AFY about doing much to the benefit of others and little to benefit us.

    If either of the George Bushs’ had gone to the Middle East for oil alone, then I think they should be impeached for the exceedingly poor job they did in securing that oil. A month or two of round the clock high level bombing would have taken care of the Iraqi problem and we’d be paying a buck a gallon again from our new US owned oil fields. I joke of course.

  2. Everyone wants our troops home, asap, just that some us want to win first, and not lose by withdrawing too early.

    We are the only major power in history to win wars and not take some of the land of the defeated with one major exception enough soil to bury our dead in, so much for your self interest!

    When America wins a war there is one other thing we leave behind and that my friend is FREEDOM!!

    AFY!

  3. Do you really think the world would go dark if we pulled back? Do you really believe that we are holding it all together? I don’t think the world would fall apart if we scaled back our interventionism. In fact I think the overall tension in the world would go down a few notches.

    Also, when we do intercede in events we don’t do it for the benefit of others, we do it for our own self interests. Republicans had in recent history been against our intervention in others affairs specifically I’m thinking about Kosovo, Somalia and Haiti under Clinton.

    One example of McCain arguing for immediate withdrawal of troops:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8TFKXHiefs

  4. Face it, we aren’t talking about scads of little grassroots terrorists or murderers, we are talking about Islam. And I don’t see much in the history of Islam that would suggest a catalyst is needed to terrorize other nations and people. In fact without other nations and people, Islam starts terrorizing its own people.

    For the rest of humanity to get along peacefully with Islam, Muslims must enact reform from within. Unfortunately Islam has a built in guard against reformers; death sentences. By us being out there taking care of the worst while helping to maintain the peace, those who are trying to enact change within Islam, just might live long enough to turn things in a positive direction.

    Seems real similar to the drug situation. Wouldn’t a patient stands a better chance of living if hospitalized and cared for through the withdrawal process? Seems better than just abandoning them to the streets, but leaving the curtains cracked on our warm homes so they can see our shining example through a double pane window.

  5. Murder has been around for a long time as long as terrorism, can we seek out and destroy all murderers, not allways but methinks retreat & surrender will never work, longterm, shortterm and inbetween term!

    We are free in this country and that is why this conversation is happening, are we perfect, NO, do we make mistakes, YES, but that is the beauty of freedom, to not be perfect, to make mistakes and hopefully learn from them.

    But one thing that history has taught anyone paying attention is that to retreat and surrender in the face of evil is one big fat mistake!!

    Here a question for you, say we do everything you want, we retreat from the world, no troops outside the borders of the US, and the bright light of freedom in the world goes dark, and one day that darkness reaches here again but lets say 9-11 x 100, where do we retreat to then?

    AFY!!

  6. I completely agree with you on the drug abuse solution. And we would probably also agree that private sector charities and organizations can better help these people with less bureaucracy and wasteful spending.

    As far as terror goes it seems like your view is short sighted. Do you think that we will be able to seek out and destroy ALL terrorists? That is certainly not an unattainable goal because terrorism has been around in different forms since the beginning of time. We need a more long term solution to “defeating terrorism”. Personally I think we could defeat terrorism by not serving as a catalyst for creating terrorists and also being an example for how a free and open society is much more successful and fulfilling than an oppressive and dictorial one.

  7. Drug abuse is a medical problem which has a medical not law enforcement solution.

    Terror is a problem that the whole world has, we as the leader of the free world can just retreat to within our borders and let the terrorist have at the rest of the world, while we wait until it reaches our shores again(which it will one day) or we can be proactive and seek out the terrorist and destroy them.

    Methinks eradicating the rats in their holes are the best solution!

    AFY!!

  8. We have the same problem with the War on Terror as we do with the War on Drugs. There is no distinctly defined enemy and there are no distinctly defined end goals. You cannot equate these two wars with one of our wars against another nation or group of nations. The War on Terror will be endless because there will ALWAYS be terror, just like there will always be drugs. We need to target and fight against these dangers in a smarter and more manageable way.

    If we were to step back from the middle east and no longer be the source for their discontentment maybe they would be able to focus their outrage and discontent on the true source which is their failed systems of government. As it is most of the middle east nations probably feel some relief that their citizenry can vent their frustration on us rather than take it out on the true source.

  9. Unfortunately, Muslim extremism won’t stop if we quit fighting the war on terror, so it doesn’t really matter how or if we can pay for the war. If we don’t win, we lose; no time outs or let’s play another game.

    I believe that’s historically the way things have worked. Would Hitler have stopped bombing England if Churchill had simply quit fighting due to budget demands? Think the Japanese would have not bombed Pearl Harbor if we had simply explained that we weren’t going to fight because coming out of a Depression it would be real hard on our nation to foot the bill for a war? Nope, I don’t think so.

    We need to get really behind this war and win it. We need gas rationing, savings bond drives, steel pennies, whatever it takes. If we don’t win, we lose; and if we take our sweet time arguing about it more people die.

    Some anti-US types in Bellingham skirted the public process and made Bellingham a troops home town. They say they support the troops, I say hogwash. If they supported the troops then they would do whatever they could to help win the war. Instead of complaining about how troops are in danger, they could convince the city to scrap the $60,000,000 library/ living room. That same money would by roughly 400 fully armored Humvees. I’d put that bumper sticker on my car BELLINGHAM: Protecting our Troops.

    I do understand what your saying, but history has shown that any form of not fighting Muslim extremists is the same as kneeling, putting a pillowcase over your head, and handing them a sword.

  10. Wally, soon you will have no choice BUT to go there.

    We are paying for our military adventurism on borrowed money, and when the bill comes due we won’t be able to maintain our bases and troops in the 150+ countries we are stationed in already. If you don’t want to end our interventionism how about at least scaling it back a bit to a manageable level.

    We Republicans need to wake up to the fact that domestic programs aren’t the only things that cost money. If McCain wants to say he’ll cut spending he can’t also say he wants to be in Iraq for the next 100 years or expand our War on Terror. Over a third of our budget goes to military spending and that’s not including the war supplementals that get added straight to the deficit.

    Pretty sad if we lose the war on terror in the same way we beat the Russia’s in the cold war, by going bankrupt.

  11. What the Ron Pauliact’s advocate for the rest of the world is terror, tyranny and the ultimate distruction of freedom as we know it; out side of that they are a harmless group of citizens!

    AFY!