Posted on 04/20/2016 9:44:49 AM PDT by C19fan
Should have took that advice to an extent, would have saved us a lot of pain.
Nobody said that. It’s a bad paraphrase, just like “separation of church and state”. Not all alliances are entangling, which is what the real quote acknowledges.
Washington said in his Fifth Annual Message to Congress that the USA, “if we desire to secure peace ... it must be known that we are at all times ready for war”. And allowing any new “world police” that is bent on imperialistic expansionism to rise on the scene is antithetical to that.
The U.S. jumped into WWI. That’s Isolationism?
...
Let them go where?
Last time we played the isolationism game, we got WWII. And Obama’s been pushing us in that direction, even further.
...
If the Europeans had to pay for a real defense establishment they would not have the money to subsidize their mass Islamization policy.
WWII was not caused by American isolationism. That’s idiotic. I know it’s hard to believe, but there used to be a time when not every war on planet earth was automatically an American war.
The danger today isn’t isolationism, it’s us being involved in everything.
I can think of
at least three major conflicts where we are supporting both sides.
Syria, Israel/Pali, and India. There are probably more.
Hundreds of millions live under dictatorships that are close friends with. That isn’t exactly good for us.
We have over a thousand bases worldwide. The danger we face is that most people don’t see us as protectors like they did 5 or 6 decades ago.
The world War coming is when some nuke nations decide the world would be a little better if we got knocked out in a surprise first strike.
A little isolationism is just what we need. And to build our society and economy back. A powerful military and a crumbling economy was the trademark of the USSR.
Also presented not as “negative liberties”. RSF’s methodology also has a bias to it; look at the importance they place on so-called “pluralism”.
- Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
- These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor. …
Sig !
We protect the Saudis, that’s been our foreign policy since WWII.
OK; that’s a blanket claim sans evidence, when the evidence is against it. Aside from passing five Neutrality Acts, FDR withdrew US forces from the Caribbean and allowed Mexico to nationalize US-owned oil industry assets; he also stood by and refused to help China against Japan, which is reminiscent of how Obama’s standing aloof against Red China today. Italy’s annexation of Ethiopia not only made the US look weak, but also Britain.
And now it’s Obama’s policy to protect the Iranians.
It wasn’t just Clinton. Tell me how bush was any different. Or Obama. Or for that matter Gore, Kerry, Romney, or the loon McCain.
And “allow” them? Allowing them means us running Europe and everything. That’s also known as the new world order.
Washington did indeed warn against foreign entanglements special allies and alliances during his Farewell Address.
And he said absolutely nothing about us going around the world looking to be involved in every single war that was out there.
I didn’t say Bush was different, frankly. I was pointing out its start with Clinton. From there, NATO became a de facto arm of the European Union to serve as a tool for its own expansion (which is certainly not “us running Europe”, which was never the definition of the so-called NWO anyhow); our leaders let that happen, and walking away from it rather than putting a stop to it will just make it worse.
Calling “leading from behind” by a new name will not change the outcome.
Yes, the Waffen-SS was the first modern pan-European military force. German, French, Spanish, Dutch, Croatian, Estonian, Latvian, Russian, etc. They even had some turncoat Brits they recruited from POW camps.
At this point, all I see NATO doing mow is 1) providing security cover for the EU Left to import millions of illiterate Muslims while their culture commits suicide and 2) providing cover for the centralized, statist, proto-fascist EU bureaucracy in Brussels to slowly take over Europe, under German control.
NATO seems to have become a force for evil.
There’s a great scene in the movie “Soldier of Orange” where the Dutch volunteer for the Waffen SS, is in Russia and bites it on the toilet when a partisan tosses in a hand-grenade.
Note, no Poles! Why, the Germans weren’t stupid, they knew the first thing a Pole would do if they give him a rifle would be to shoot the German with it.
You said we shouldn’t have “allowed” Europe to run its foreign policy in this way. We don’t run Europe, except as NWO types.
And as for Mexico, you think we should have invaded in 1938? Anyone in the 1930s suggesting America go to war because Japan and China, or because Ethiopia was fighting Italy would have been laughed off stage. And you see FDR as an isolationist? Are you high??
FDR worked morning noon and night to bring the American people into war. Lend lease, training, anti-sub work, starting a prewar draft. The willow run plant that churned out bombers was dedicated 6 months before Pearl Harbor and a week before the Russians were invaded. Convoys ran non stop.
Its a freakin’ idiotic Euro slander to say America wasn’t in the war before December 7th. We were in it in a very big way, and they couldn’t have survived without us picking a side and doing what we did.
But no junior, FDR was not an isolationist. The criticism of him is that he was too international and too fast to drag us into the war.
Nobody, except you thinks Italy fighting in Ethiopia was causas belli.
What "isolation game" are do you mean? Wilson created the idea of the League of Nations. US citizens 100 years ago rightly still saw their nation as one of limited central government, neutral in European affairs, and protected by oceans. The ideas that the USA needed a strong Federal Government and also needed to run a world empire was (and is) an evil Progressive notion, The reasons for the rise of Hitler and WWII had many reasons - among them the punishing terms of Versaille, the rise of aggressive Bolshevism and the Soviet Empire, and world economic collapse - brought on by newly formed central-banks cheap money and bubble blowing of the 1920's.
I agree with the counterfactual history that if the USA had simply stayed out of WWI and not favored the UK, both sides would have run out of food, money and lives by the end of 1916, forcing a stalemate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.