Washington meant alliances with France and England. Both had a pretty poor track record. The U.S. was a weak nation at that time (subject to defeat if both France and England decided to attack simultaneously)...a hyperpower today, things have changed.
Are you posting directly from The Washington Post or just from home today?
There are more democracies in the world today by a huge factor than there were 10 years ago.
You've made quite a few isolationist posts; I didn't know that was what liberals stood for these days.
Well, we liberated Europe twice in the last century from the combination of their own militaristic follies and cowardly appeasement.
They're not REALLY our friends/allies now, are they?
I find it amusing that the French, in particular, are always quick to deflect criticism of their anti-Americanism with reminders of how Lafayette helped us during our revolution......
Yet they conveniently FORGET things like Omaha Beach.
Japan attacked us with ships and planes built from scrap metal we had sold to them. I guess this writer believes we won't have any future troubles with China, either. What a head-in-the-sand (or some other dark place) perspective.
To the Neo-isolationists, HERE is what we are up to in Iraq (and to a lesser extent in Afganistan).
Counter Insurgency is a strange bastard style of war. It is not total war but it is also more then the Leftist" Police matter". The other thing most old Cast Iron Conservatives forget is the political aspect. Iraq was doable. We had the political consensus to do it. So since we needed a kill zone we could suck the terrorists into and we needed to get the American people to support the cost, there was no other choice BUT Iraq.
Want to really blow the Leftists minds? Tell them this. Even if Al Gore won in 2000 and 9-11 happened the USA would STILL be doing the same thing now in Iraq. Iraq was doable militarily and politically. There was no other place for the US to go. Iraq is basically the same deal as the invasions of Italy was in 1943
Here in a nutshell, is the MILTIARY reason for Iraq. The War on Terrorism is different sort of war. In the war on Terrorism, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone. Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The "Holy" soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is hostile to guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).
There are other reasons to do Iraq but that is the MILITARY reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.
Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. I often worry that the American people have neither the maturity, nor the intellect" to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like "No Blood for Oil" or "We support the Troops, bring them home" then to actually THINK. Problem is these people have NO desire to co-exist with us. They see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. They think their "god" will bless them for killing Westerners.
So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest realize we are serious. See in the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming "We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad" and recruit the next round of "holy warriors". Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it.
Are you really claiming to be so stupid you don't know how Hitler and the Nazis took over Germany?
If you are expecting an intelligent discussion of various views on foreign policy based on their merits from the Bush-cultists, then you're wasting your time. You'll be much more popular just posting pictures of mushroom clouds over the Middle East. Come on, all the cool kids are doing it.
And the Quasi War and War of 1812 were fought because? Sometimes foreign entanglements find you.
That's a shame, is it not?
Bush is wrong in saying that democracies don't attack each other. Hitler was democratically elected and it devolved into a tyranny.
Hitler was not democratically elected, that's an internet talking-point which is a perversion of the truth. Hitler's party won a bloc of seats; Hitler himself was appointed Chancellor. Along the way they generally behaved like, well, fascists (Reichstag fire, etc), which grossly distorted any claims to democratic legitimacy existing in that country.
Same thing happened in Haiti and in much of South America.
Which democracy did Haiti attack? Which democratic countries in South America attacked which other democratic countries?
Remember, your friend was supposedly countering the idea that democracies do not attack each other. I guess he forgot.
Trading partners tend not to attack each other.
We've been doing the trading partners routine (Saudi Arabia?) and the problem is, if we take a tyranny as a given and become a trading partner with them, that de facto aligns us with that tyranny in the eyes of dissidents/rebels/envious usurpers (Al Qaeda?), and puts us in their sights. So, your friend is right that being a nice trading partner doesn't get us attacked (openly..) by the regime in question - but it causes a different sort of problem, one that we call "terrorism" (your friend may have heard of it).
The wisdom of George Washington's Farewell Address again comes through: Trade with everybody...but avoid their political entanglements.
Sounds nice. What exactly does it mean? What's a "political entanglement"? And how do we "avoid" it? Does your friend know, or does he just assume that if it's a policy your friend doesn't like, it must be that "political entanglement" thing Washington was talking about.
In what way exactly does deciding "We're going to get rid of that tyrant, and pave the way for the people there to form their own government" represent a "political entanglement"? And is that really the sort of political entanglement Washington was advising against?
As outsiders we can judge Afghanistan and the Middle East with disgust. They are barbaric but Islam has been around for 1600 years and its becoming more militant. If Bush or any western leader thinks they can intervene and transform these countries into the judeo-christian models we have in America, Canada, Austriala and UK (that's about it), then they don't have a full appreciation of history and human nature.
Woo hoo... watch the straw fly as your friend does some fancy footwork and builds a GIANT straw man! What a display. I've seen some wacky stuff, but I've never seen anyone try to sincerely pretend that what Bush is doing is trying to transform Iraq into the "Judeo-Christian model"... yeesh.
Doesn't merit a response.
Bush liberated Afghanistan but since he chose to intervene again in their affairs to save face with the media, the Afghans are now carrying signs that say 'Death to Bush'.
What is "intervene again"? I can only guess at what he's talking about (the Christian apostate?).
Notice how your friend cannot see individual Afghans. There is no individual Afghan. There is only "The Afghans". The Afghans either do X, or they do Y, and your friend can tell/learn/describe what The Afghans are doing in a breeze. Right now, The Afghans are holding signs, according to your friend.
I'm assuming he knows this because he saw it on TV.
Just rephrasing what your friend is saying, to make it more clear how silly it is.
Some elements of the current Afghan government were about to murder a man for being a Christian. To the extent that Bush did anything about that (he actually didn't do very much), I'm glad for it. That's what decent communities do: pressure people who intend to do an injustice. Your friend seems worried/angst-filled that it made some fascist theocrats in Afghanistan (i.e., "The Afghans") mad.
I'm glad it made them mad. I don't want them to be happy if being happy means killing apostates.
You can accuse them of being ignorant and ungrateful but is it wise to draw the ire of crazy people when what you need from them to protect your own country is their docility?
"Docility"? What we need from them is a government with democratic legitimacy that protects a modicum of human rights, so that it can stamp down on terror havens and supporters in its midst (which we may, of course, have to pressure them to do from time to time) from a position of good political and moral strength, instead of from the position of being a "strongman" merely doing our bidding.
Your friend seems to have wanted to toss the Christian apostate under the bus so that it doesn't make the crazies mad. Let them go ahead and kill him so they don't get mad at us. That's just wrong and cowardly. More to the point, that's the mentality behind the policy approach that's done so well for us in preventing terror against us these last 20-30 years.
Islam can't take over the world with car bombs, IED's and the hijacking the planes of others. Why should they be in a hurry? All they have to do is wait for the effects of our contraception suicide pill and investors that need foreign labor.
don't you know it's one "unified" world now... at least that's what the liberals want...
Your forgetting what else Washington said, " if your feeling blue, try some leeches". Honestly its the freaking 21st century!!!