The idea is Acheson maneuvered FDR into placing sanctions on Japanese procurement of oil (in retaliation for Japan's invasion of Manchuria, Vietnam, and Korea). That constituted unconstitutional policy, and the theory goes that it is what "forced" Japan into attacking. Unfortunately for that argument it is also one of those economic steps inherent in international collective security that is intended to force changes in policy short of warfare. Discarding that form of collective security takes "non-interventionism" immediately into the arena of isolationism despite the earnest objections of its adherents to the contrary.
You can see where this is going. Everything that runs contrary to the idea that a naked act of violent aggression can impel us to action is immediately claimed to be the result of our own lack of adherence to some constantly-shifting standard. 9/11, for example - we "would" - that word again - never have been attacked, that argument runs, if we hadn't troops in Saudi Arabia. Which we wouldn't have had if only we had acceded to Saddam's naked aggression in Kuwait. Which he wouldn't have done had we not supported him against Iran, which we wouldn't have done had we not been caught meddling there in the person of the Shah, etc, etc...it's a constant litany of blame that infallibly finds a way to deflect the blame away from those committing the violence and onto its ultimate victim.
The real problem is that nobody short of God can say how anything "would" have turned out in circumstances other than the ones that actually happened. That is the arena of academics and fools - amusing, entertaining, but ultimately futile. It is no basis on which to build a foreign (or any other) policy. IMHO, of course.
We're talkin’ considerable overlap.
they are not conservatives, they are paleo conservatives and there is a difference.....
paleo conservatives, which the Buchannon’s and Paul’s are aligned with, have more in common with leftists in their views on America’s involvement in war and support of Israel, then modern day conservatives...
I’d still like to see the video of RuPaul’s comments...
That post was fun to read. Although I was a bit disappointed when I got to “etc, etc...”, as I was having so much fun. ;>)
Good post, I agree 100%
Well said.
Well said.
Very well stated.
I share a lot of views with the Libertarians, but I can't get onboard with that view of national defense and open borders.
Based on your cogent explanation in post #39, I have a favor to ask of you.
Last weekend, at a family party, I got into conversation with a (normally) sensible, conservative, usually well-informed family member who told me he agrees with Paul. I went on to list the things that I have heard Paul say that make sense, and then I challenged the relative on Paul’s outrageous comments about September 11. To my astonishment, he told me that he agrees with Paul. This relative stated that our problems with the Middle East began with our assistance in establishing the state of Israel!
I was totally flabbergasted, but I realized how uninformed I am when I fumbled around trying to find an explanation beyond the moral right of the Jews to their Holy Land. I also pointed out how Israel has created a beacon of civilization and democracy in the dismal reason. But I found myself pretty weak in this debate territory searching for arguments showing practical reasons.
Could you please help me? Thanks