Your thought makes sone sense. Except that but got the alliance with France and French assistance, the American revolution would likely have failed. And without the Soviet Union, the allied war effort could well have failed in WW2. Alliances have always been a part of nation states’ affairs. As a very practical thing as well as ideological.
At any event, I’d be happy to discuss your more isolationist position (not a put- down in the slightest) after the IDF eliminates the threats to her country.
I cannot approve or support the backstabbing of an ally during hostilities. The timing is totally immoral even if we were to agree on policy. (And the messaging to the rest of the world, including nations like iran that are sworn to attack, nuke usa, destroy America) is disastrous.
Sincerely,
FHC .
I've been hearing this for decades. But there is always some foreign cause making claims on us. "Isolationism is fine after we eliminate [fill in current Hitler of the month here]."
And Israel is always claiming some special "temporary crisis" requiring our help.
I remember in the late 1970s, Israel was saying that it only needed U.S. aid for "just a few more years, just until it could get on its feet."
In the 1980s, it was just for the duration of the Cold War. "The Soviets support the Arabs. It wouldn't be right to pull support from Israel while the Soviets are supporting the Arabs."
In the 1990s, it was because of the sudden influx of a million Soviet Jews into Israel, so new housing had to be built, which the U.S. was somehow obligated to pay for.
Then it was Saddam (a war we fought largely for Israel). Then it was Iran. Israel's "temporary crises" never end.
Which is true of every welfare client, foreign and domestic. But while conservatives know that welfare breeds dependency, some apparently believe this economic law is suspended in the case of Israel.