Replies

I understand why you interpreted my post as you did because it wasn't clear, but I was speaking hyperbolically when I talked about speaking German and Japanese.

Let me say it this way.........if we, the United States of America, had not intervened and saved Europe from the Third Reich and Asia from Imperialist Japan, and replaced those governments with forced democracies, there is no way to even speculate how great the world wide disaster would have been.

I note you ignored my assessment of isolationists like yourself, and did not choose to defend yourself or deny it.

The only options as I see it, for the motivation of isolationism are that America is a negative force in the world and should not 'impose' our way of government on other countries........a view shared by the left. Or, the other option is that you don't care what happens to anyone else in the world because you are either elitist, or completely self-centered.

I suppose a third option would be that you are all cowards, but I tend to think that your isolationist views stem from either the view that American democracy is a bad thing, or an elitism that says that people outside our borders neither want, nor deserve freedom, or self-absorbtion that results in apathy about the plight of anyone else except yourself.

I find none of those options acceptable, and all are completely repugnant to my own Christian world view.

But in the case of terrorism and the present war we are waging on those who want us all dead, your isolationist view is not only elitist and selfish, but is in reality, self-destructive, not only to your own personal well being, but to the well being of the country that we (both?) love. In other words, your POV with this enemy, is dangerous and potentially deadly, and I praise God that we have a President who doesn't share it, and pray daily that in 2008 whoever is elected will have the vision and courage to continue this fight, and will not cower in fear as would be your preference.

if we, the United States of America, had not intervened and saved Europe from the Third Reich and Asia from Imperialist Japan, and replaced those governments with forced democracies, there is no way to even speculate how great the world wide disaster would have been.

There's a good point for you in here but you ought to keep your history straight. We went to war with countries that declared war on us. We even allied ourselves with the Stalinist Soviet Union to win that war. Roosevelt wanted to intervene in Europe but was restrained by among others the Republican Isolationists. We gave extremely limited support to Brittan before Perl Harbor.

I note you ignored my assessment of isolationists like yourself, and did not choose to defend yourself or deny it.

Are you or are you not a Communist Mr. Wright?

The only options as I see it, for the motivation of isolationism are that America is a negative force in the world and should not 'impose' our way of government on other countries........a view shared by the left.

Possibly he thinks other people should fight for their own freedom with a little help from their friends. The French didn't win the Revolutionary War for us, they helped.

Or, the other option is that you don't care what happens to anyone else in the world because you are either elitist, or completely self-centered.

An elitist thinks he knows what's best for everyone else. It's possible to care what happens to others in the world and also have the humility to know they have to take their own future in their hands. Try a little wisdom from a quote:

God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things which should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.

Reinhold Niebuhr (1892 - 1971), in a sermon in 1943

I don't know where the line is but having the "grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed" does not make him elitist, self centered, or uncaring.

You also might want to rethink your slavish devotion to making everybody democratic. Do you really want a democracy right now in Pakistan?, In Saudi Arabia? In Syria? Each of these countries would be a lot more of a thorn in our side as democracies than they currently are. Just consider the danger of a nuclear armed Pakistani democracy by itself. I'd like to see them on the road to democracy but concern about our own safety comes first.

The successful governments in the area are Constitutional Monarchies with strong monarchs. Jordan has been a force of sanity in the region and we fought a war to return the Kuwaiti monarchy to their throne. Maybe we should think in terms of what works in the region. Let's not let the perfect get in the way of the good. There's a lot more work to do in the war on terror.

I find none of those options acceptable, and all are completely repugnant to my own Christian world view.

So when are you planning to invade North Korea? There are a lot of truly awful governments in the world. If we want to make them all democracies then we need another strategy. America has more than just military power.

But in the case of terrorism and the present war we are waging on those who want us all dead, your isolationist view is not only elitist and selfish, but is in reality, self-destructive, not only to your own personal well being, but to the well being of the country that we (both?) love. In other words, your POV with this enemy, is dangerous and potentially deadly, and I praise God that we have a President who doesn't share it, and pray daily that in 2008 whoever is elected will have the vision and courage to continue this fight, and will not cower in fear as would be your preference.

I think questioning his patriotism is pretty rank. He may be wrong but that doesn't make him a traitor. There is a patriotic place somewhere between total isolationism and unlimited interventionalism and I suspect you'll find him somewhere in there.

I was speaking hyperbolically ...

And you still are.