[Ultra Sonic 007]

Of interesting note is that George Washington's quote used to support non-interventionism also said that we should settle affairs we are currently engaged in.

[George W. Bush]

Of interesting note is that George Washington's quote used to support non-interventionism also said that we should settle affairs we are currently engaged in.

This is where some of us RP supporters disagree with him. For instance, I for one don't think you can completely pull out of Iraq and leave them easy prey for Turkey to grab the oil in the Kurdish north or for Iran and Saudi Arabia to make mischief in the center or south.

I think that having smashed their military, we are obligated to stay to defend the country's borders until they can do it themselves. But that doesn't mean I think we should be the primary forces on the ground, acting as police. The Iraqis need to maintain internal order for themselves, protect their oil sales to have the money to provide badly needed services and then to rebuild their military to defend against aggressive neighbors and those who infiltrate across their borders, especially the Saudis and North Africans entering over the border via Damascus.

[SJackson]

Of interesting note is that George Washington's quote used to support non-interventionism also said that we should settle affairs we are currently engaged in.

Of course, Washington had a sense of honor, which he extended to actions of the nation as well. A post of mine on the "quote" from another thread.

------------------------

Is that ever true. The Washington quote is one of the most misused by internutters of the isolationist, and other, varieties. Ironically it’s the WIKI version of the quote.

I’ll use The Papers of George Washington, a final version of the Address in the NYC Library archives archives for my comments on the theory, other transcripts differ a bit word to word, but legitimate sources include the omission(s)

Rather than

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

The 2 paragraphs blended into one actually read, my bold for the deleted line. I’m sure the omission by internutters is an accident, they’re the most principled of political commentators and would never make a deliberate omission to support their point.

The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our comercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations & collisions of her friendships, or enmities.

Of course the context of the speech is important as the wisdom of our mutual defense treaty with France (yes, we were obligated by treaty entered into by the Founders to defend France) was being questioned at the time.

No matter, the omitted line negates the purpose the altered quote is generally used for, not fulfilling already formed engagements.

Many of you have actually read the Address, but for the benefit of the internet cut and pasters, the next three paragraphs, my bold as to the reiteration of Washington’s point about fulfilling engagements.

Our detached & distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one People, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or War, as our interest guided by justice shall Counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European Ambition, Rivalship, Interest, Humour or Caprice?

'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign World--So far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it--for let me not be understood as capable of patronising infidility to existing engagements, (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)--I repeat it therefore, Let those engagements. be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Personally I suspect a 21st century would recognize that our position isn’t as detached & distant as in the 18th century, and that our ability to defy material injury from external annoyance ended in 1812, as some of us were reminded on 9/11.

But Washington's position on infidelity to existing relationships is clear.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Of course. I didn’t think of Washington as the kind to not deal with problems, nor with the Founders as a whole. Look at the Barbary Pirates. Look at Madison for the “1812” war.