Posted on 09/04/2013 9:52:20 AM PDT by nuconvert
The Robert Taft Republicans Return - Isolationism has never served the interests of America, or the GOP.
'We'll be lucky to get 80 Republicans out of 230." That's an astute GOP congressman's best guess for how his caucus now stands on the vote to authorize military force against Syria.
At town hall meetings in their districts, the congressman reports, House Republicans are hearing "an isolationist message." It's not America's war. The evidence that the Assad regime used chemical weapons is ambiguous, maybe cooked. There isn't a compelling national interest to intervene. "Let Allah sort it out." We'd be coming in on the side of al Qaeda. The strike serves symbolic, not strategic, purposes. There's no endgame. It would be another Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
By looking at the world through a paper towel tube, you fail to see the reality.
The reason for action in Syria is to remove Assad and thereby weaken Iran.
Although Barack Obama is America’s worst enemy, Iran is a close second.
Fast, efficient trolley lines served thousands of communities, large and small.
Traffic moved through Manhattan faster than today.
If you needed electricity, you could certainly have had it. Ditto a fine automobile.
If you had a high school diploma, it was proof that you could read and write ... on the same day.
School teachers and civil servants were Conservatives. But, the Republicans were just about ready to shoot themselves in the foot, with Ted Roosevelt (a big government progressive) forming the Bull Moose Party that enabled Wilson to slip into the White House to lead us to war and ruined economy.
Fortunately, people were smart enough then to replace him with Harding, who although much maligned, was smart enough to keep taxes and government expenses low for a brilliant economic recovery.
Nothing much wrong with this country 100 years ago ... compared to the one we live in today under the imperial thumb of a queer African-born marxist dictator who is slowly strangling us.
Is that when Max Boot took over? He's the one who purged all non-neocons. It's at least got some variety recently.
Now, the neocon daily is the Washington Post. Hopefully, the new owner will do something about that.
Their news pages have always been leftist, remember how it was their reporters who slimed Clarence Thomas.
What a surprise: Bret Stephens, former editor of the Jerusalem Post (2002 to 2004) and card-carrying neocon, wants us to send more blood and treasure to do the bidding of the state of Israel.
This is my shocked face.
The GOP should eject these clowns from the party and from the ‘conservative movement’ entirely. There’s nothing “conservative” about using hundreds of millions of dollars of military hardware and hundreds of millions more to prop up a stupid remark by an incompetent POTUS.
You know, there were these things called “carriages” and such. You didn’t need to plant your pampered buttocks into a saddle to get somewhere.
If we had not entered WWI, it is entirely possible that there would have been no WWII.
The economic sanctions placed upon Germany by the French and the UK (echoed by Wilson’s meddling in the matter) set the stage for the rise of the Nazi party and Hitler.
Washington warned us in his farewell address to not become entangled in the affairs of the Europeans. They always are looking for witless dupes to die for the machinations of their inbred political and royalty classes.
In Wilson, we elected an Ivy League “intellectual” who thought that he knew better. It turned out that in Wilson, we had our first true fascist POTUS. More people need to learn the real history of that period of time, and when they do, Wilson doesn’t fare well in the eyes of patriots and lovers or liberty.
See, that's the problem. Neocons ARE leftist!!!! They call themselves conservatives and show up on Fox News, but they are descendants of Trotsky. They worship the state and power. They are right at home in the Post.
I’m sorry. I misread you. Yes, the WSJ reporters were all lefties under Al Hunt. Back in the day, conservatives called the WSJ news pages “the wrapper” and tossed it aside.
The US stayed out of Europe's internal conflicts until Woodrow Wilson pushed us rather pointlessly into participating in World War I, with nothing to show to it afterwards.
Seems to me we were "served" just fine by staying out of Europe (and the world's) ethnic and sectarian quarrels then and we'd be equally well-served to do so now.
Ding. We have a winner. Perfect post.
I much prefer the foreign policy legacy of Robert Taft (not to mention that of Coolidge and Hoover) over that of Woodrow Wilson and FDR. The Wall Street Journal disagrees, yet it claims to speak for “conservatism.”
We won the war, but lost the peace by not reigning in Clemenceau.
I sent out 7 faxes in the last 24 hours stating I don’t believe our Gov’t when it has lied to us about IRS, Benghazi, NSA, etc. EMPHATICALLY I said “JUST SAY NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!
If congress passes this, I will go in and change my W2 and up them so NO TAXES are taken out - I REFUSE TO FUND OBAMA’s WAR that oh by the way I don’t believe the case has been made that Assad did the gassing! Let them kill each other off!
Many of us, WSJ, are not opposed to WAR. What we OPPOSE is a war in which there is no national security interest.
You know, it is real easy to create a label for someone and apply, but the application doesn't fit...
Which pro-American faction are we going to back in Syria, Bret Stephens? Which one? I'll answer it for you: NONE OF THEM are pro-American. They ALL hate us.
Get a clue and learn some history....it'll make a better use of your time than just calling someone a name.
It looks like the war-whores are coming out of the woodwork. How convenient that none of them are likely to be put in harms’ way.
“But boy, these war mongers are so irrational it makes you wonder if there’s ulterior motives.”
Of course there are ulterior motives.
“We should not respond to foolish interventionism with advocacy for foolish isolationism.”
I’m not an isolationist, but I’m quickly warming to the idea. The use of military force in my view assumes a certain base level of morals, ethics, and competence within our leadership. Those qualities seem to be in extremely short supply for the last 2 decades or so. So you know what? I’m OK with the idea of defaulting to isolationism to keep our people for people from getting killed for no good reason.
America wasn't "isolationist" during its first century, rather, it followed the Monroe doctrine of staying out of Europe's internal conflicts in return for European powers staying out of our backyard. The US didn't rashly send troops to intervene in the Napoleonic wars in the 19th century, and rightly so.
Wilson broke with this tradition by stupidly railroading us into participation in WWI. Today, his heirs (both liberal and "neoconservative") are more than happy to repeat the same stupidity, only this time in the Middle East rather than in Europe.
Syria isn't it. Iraq wasn't it. Afghanastan was it.
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.