At Least Four Dead in Iraq Attack on Spaniards

Are you a humanitarian interventionist? Based on what you said about being galled by brutual dicatatorships you must be. That means....that you supported the interventions in Haiti and Kosovo and support the sending of U.S. troops to Zibabwee and Liberia. If not, your position is totally inconsistent and properly dismissed as a mere debating tactic. Then again, if you are a consistent humanitarian interventionist, I salute your willingness to follow through on your convictions come hell or high water.

While I won't be sucked into your binary-thinking On/Off MustBe/MustNotBe stuff, I will iterate the places where I think US intervention makes sense from an aspect of three factors: 1) Do-ability, 2) Removal of a brutal dictatorship, and 3) Enlightened self interest.

Haiti - Yes. Glad we intervened. Pity it didn't work out so well.
Kosovo - No. Not doable and Russias problem.
Zibabwee (sic) -- Yes. Absolutely. What is going on there is madness. We have a Hitler-worshiping thug setting the stage for massive starvation and an interesting twist on communism.
Liberia -- I have not been convinced of the need yet.

The nice part about these little quizzes is I get to ask you back.

Are you a reactionary isolationist? Based on what you said about being galled by nearly any intervention you must be. That means....that you opposed the interventions in Germany in World War Two (Including Lend/Lease), Afghanistan, Kuwait and Grenada. If not, your position is totally inconsistent and properly dismissed as a mere debating tactic. Then again, if you are a consistent reactionary isolationist, I salute your willingness to follow through on your convictions come hell or high water.

:o)

Reactionary isolationist? No....the pro-war folks are the isolationists because they want to create barriers and tariff walls like George "steel tariff" Bush. I am free market internationalist who advocates free trade and free exchange of information.

More seriously, I am not a "non-interventionist" (a more neutral term that your strange and innacurate "reactionary isolationist" slur). I describe the policy I support as national defenseism. I would have supported Lend Lease (a trade which helped our national defense) and certainly would have supported the war once the Japanese forced our hand. I *supported* the Afghan war because it was a responde to a *direct attack* and said so several times on Free Republic. Intervention is justified but only if there is an imminent threat to the U.S.

I do admire your consistency....but where in the heck do you intend to get all the necessary troops to launch these invasionns and pay for the subsequent nation building. Do you also suggest we send 100K troops each to Syria, Iran, Libya, Zimbabwee, etc. not to mention 83 billion dollars to reconstruct these countries? Your only hope it would seem to carry out your ambitious Wilsonian ambition would be to raise taxes and impose conscription Otherwise, how do you intend to accomplish these miracles?

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.