Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Israel Arrests Settlers it Says Tried to Bomb Palestinians
The New York Times ^ | 5-19-02 | John Kifner

Posted on 05/20/2002 8:36:57 AM PDT by Aleksandar Vojvoda

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last
To: Nachum
Fair question. Of course isolationism was not the primary cause of the Rise of Hitler, but is widely considered a factor in it. The larger rejection of isolationism grew as a result of the great chasms developed in that war.

I believe that the US was actively engaged with the world between WWI and WWII,but the worldwide depression diverted a lot of attention to domestic affairs.The cry of American isolationism,in my opinion,is usually made by the fans of the League of Nations,which the US Senate would not ratify entry into.
61 posted on 05/24/2002 7:39:24 AM PDT by Aleksandar Vojvoda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Aleksandar Vojvoda
However one looks at it, the notion of the US being uninvolved in the affairs of the world is just not going to happen. The idea is isolationist in its essence.

Which brings us back to the original discussion over the use of your tax dollars in US foreign policy. I am not sure what you are concerned about. The Settlers? Noam Federman?

62 posted on 05/24/2002 2:05:30 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
However one looks at it, the notion of the US being uninvolved in the affairs of the world is just not going to happen. The idea is isolationist in its essence. Which brings us back to the original discussion over the use of your tax dollars in US foreign policy. I am not sure what you are concerned about. The Settlers? Noam Federman?

No, it actually brings us back to my challenge to you to substantiante how your original statement that Stalin and Mao(as well as Hitler) were a direct result of US isolationism.
63 posted on 05/24/2002 10:34:48 PM PDT by Aleksandar Vojvoda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Aleksandar Vojvoda
Not as a result. As an example of how we are not isolationist in our response to.
64 posted on 05/25/2002 10:23:42 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
If on the other hand, you are simply saying that you argue for the withdrawal of all American support (militarily or otherwise) from all foreign "entanglment", than that is commonly referred to isolationism. That point of view has been utterly rejected in our century, especially after the rise of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

OK,now I see what you are trying to say.I believe that a response to Communism in our hemisphere was justified (with Cuba),however,I am not so sure that Vietnam or even Korea has been worth the expense or loss of American lives.
65 posted on 05/26/2002 8:42:59 AM PDT by Aleksandar Vojvoda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Aleksandar Vojvoda
In hindsight we could say a lot of conflicts might have been unnecessary, however I do not think that the US (or now Europe also) will be uninvolved in these types of matters. We can fully expect to see a steady flow of involvement in the future, IMHO.

That is why it is fruitless to point a finger at our action in the middle east decry a waste of one's individual taxes spent in the matter. It would be like complaining about the expense of placement of troops anywhere we have projected our influence. It is all one "tax dollar".

As the holyland is dear to most people, most pick someone to support. Some pick the pragmatists, some pick the rigid religious position (pick your religion) and some are merely pacifist. I am having a difficult time understanding your point of view here.

66 posted on 05/26/2002 10:18:43 AM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
I am having a difficult time understanding your point of view here.

My view is to avoid foreign entanglements.I don't believe that there are many,if any,examples of a modern war that has been a good return on invested tax dollars,least of all,the middle east(since you brought it up).If we are attacked by a foreign foe,then we must respond,of course.
67 posted on 05/26/2002 12:00:45 PM PDT by Aleksandar Vojvoda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Aleksandar Vojvoda; Nachum
And I had always been taught that the Versailles Treaty led to the rise of Hitler.And how do you account for your linking of Isolationism to Stalin and Mao?

From your profile, Aleksander, I take it that you are a Serb which may account with your unfamiliarity with post-World War I American Isolationism and your stated belief in another post that "I believe that the US was actively engaged with the world between WWI and WWII,but the worldwide depression diverted a lot of attention to domestic affairs."

After World War I, there was a great revulsion in the U.S. to all European matters and the U.S. decided to let Europe handle it's own mess. The resultant American disillusionment with international affairs expressed itself in strong isolationist and pacifist sentiments.

In the 1930's, when Hitler began to re-arm, military action by the U.S., France and Britain could very easily have have killed Nazi Germany in it's infancy. Instead, the U.S. kept itself in splendid isolation and the America First movement thrived. Without American support, Britain and France cowered away from a confrontation with Hitler and Germany's military strength increased exponentially from that of an unarmed nation to the most powerfully armed nation in Europe.

When World War II broke out in Europe, the entire U.S. Army had a strength of only 190,000 men.

With war imminent, the Selective Service and Training Act of September 16, 1940, required, for the first time in the history of the United States, men to serve in a peacetime army. Even with a war raging in Europe, this measure passed with only a single Congressional vote. Such was the power of American pacifism and isolationism at the time.

America woke up from it's isolationism and pacifism when, on 7 December 1941, it rained Japanese bombs in Pearl Harbor and then on 11 December 1941, Germany declared war on the U.S.

After World War II, America realized that isolationism would only bring more European disasters down the road and actively engaged in the defense of Western Europe. As a result, Western Europe did not end up being ruled by Stalin.

The conquest of Western Europe by Hitler demonstrated to America the results of American isolationism. The end of American isolationism prevented Stalin from taking over Western Europe as he did Eastern Europe and prevented Communism from taking over South Korea and Japan.

Whether America and Western Europe should have maintained a policy of isolationism in regards the former Yugoslavia and allowed the Serbs, Croats and Muslims to kill each other as they have for centuries is another matter. If it does not affect the world's strategecic balance, should the inhabitants of the former Yugoslavia be given free reign to kill each other just as we let the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda kill each other? Some say, "Yes". Some say, "No". Some say, "Who cares".

68 posted on 05/26/2002 1:33:40 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
"Isolationism" is a bogey-man word for Leftist Interventionists

Sorry,I am not a Serb but a Polish,Lithuanian,Irish,Scottish,German-American,since you seem interested in my ethnicity.Oh,and one more thing-an Isolationist.
69 posted on 05/26/2002 2:12:47 PM PDT by Aleksandar Vojvoda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Aleksandar Vojvoda
"Isolationism" is a bogey-man word for Leftist Interventionists

Sorry,I am not a Serb but a Polish,Lithuanian,Irish,Scottish,German-American,since you seem interested in my ethnicity.Oh,and one more thing-an Isolationist.

If you say so.

The historical fact, however, is that the American Communist Party was one of the shrillest advocates for American neutrality in World War II right up until the day that Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.

The other historical fact is that the United States followed the Isolationist policy that you embrace during the 1930's.

When German troops march into the Rhineland on March 7, 1936, the U.S. followed your isolationist policy and was not a player on the European stage. In October 1936, when Hitler's government announced the Second Four-Year Plan, a comprehensive plan to transform the entire nation's economy to prepare for war, the U.S. followed your isolationist policy and again did nothing.

If the U.S. had been involved in Europe in 1936 and put an end to Hitler in 1936, then, between 1939 and 1945, 20 million Europeans, including millions your Polish, Lithuanian, German and Scot distant cousins would not have died.

In addition, over 200,000 Americans would not have died on the battlefields of Europe after Hitler declared war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941.

In the late 1700's, when America was a national pygmy and the Atlantic Ocean protected America, Washington's advice was sound.

In the 1940's, when enemy aircraft carriers could mount a surprise and devastating sneak attack on U.S. soil, Washington's advice was two centuries out of date.

In the 21st Century, when ICBM's can vaporize America within minutes, Washington's advice is as out of date as a Roman Legion.

70 posted on 05/26/2002 7:50:47 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Aleksandar Vojvoda
I think understand your point of view well. It is as I first explained to you as a "non-starter". "Avoiding foreign entaglements" is merely other language for isolationism.

It would seem we are going around in circles. If you are going to throw stones at what you percieve as US failures, a hundred voices will come on and tell you of its successes.

71 posted on 05/26/2002 9:44:11 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Aleksandar Vojvoda
I figured that fingers-on-keyboards would be flying over this one.I am surprised,though,that the old,"anti-Semite,Anti-Israel,etc." hasn't been trotted out yet.

No, because all right thinking people support Israeli police busting Israelis who are bent on terrorizing Palestinian Arabs or Palestinian Jews.
72 posted on 05/26/2002 9:48:55 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
No, because all right thinking people support Israeli police busting Israelis who are bent on terrorizing Palestinian Arabs or Palestinian Jews.

I am with you 100%.
73 posted on 05/27/2002 8:49:44 AM PDT by Aleksandar Vojvoda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson