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 ...
the WSJ seems pretty gung-ho on going to war for Obama. Curious.
... Except, you know, for those first hundred years or so...
So now if you don’t want to the world’s policeman, you are considered an ‘isolationist’.
Washington play book page 1: Define your enemies; attach a word to them; bash and bash and bash.
I am seldom opposed to an intervention when it is designed to prevent a larger catastrophe.
I am, however, opposed to intervening on behalf of Al Qaeda anywhere anytime. And I’m opposed to arming jihadists who are killing Christians. That doesn’t make me an isolationist.
I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand.
The WSJ loves Obama. For several reasons, but mostly because of the immigration issue — slave labor is good for business. They might as well support his foreign adventures too.
How about a little John Adams like restraint? His proudest moment in his mind was when he kept us out of war with France. All it would have taken was a few hundred American seamen being killed or maimed and he could have won the presidency again. But he decided to stand on principle and did the right thing.
Yeah, I miss those days. No electricity, or running water . . . and if you need to get somewhere you rode a horse.
This isn’t isolationism. We have exactly ZERO national interest in getting involved in the Syrian Civil War, and one could argue that it’s in our interest to let them keep fighting each other.
And then there’s the use of Chemical Weapons. Syria neither signed nor acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention, so there isn’t even the pretense of “International Law” here.
Not worth even one American dollar, much less even a single drop of American blood. . . .
Just wait. As the war mongers get more desperate we're all gonna' be called anti-semites.
I used to get so sick of lefties quoting Ike about the military industrial complex. But boy, these war mongers are so irrational it makes you wonder if there's ulterior motives.
Bret Stephens needs to gear up and go to war on his own dime.
Muslims do it all the time and I think its high time our arm chair generals hike up their big boy pants and show us what they’re made of.
Oh Crap
This noise again?
Think Palin had the right summary: Let Allah sort them out
The WSJ editorial page is dominated by neocons who never seem to learn anything about the risks of going to war for utopian reasons.
Isolationism is a very bad idea.
Randomly bombing Syria without any plan or any consensus is also a very bad idea.
We should not respond to foolish interventionism with advocacy for foolish isolationism.
Chris Christie?
Sorry son, you can’t go swimming right now. The President is using the ocean.
The writer is guilty of using a pejorative label without fully understanding the implications, both historically and within the current context. I also find it interesting the WSJ wants to provide political cover for Obama so there’s no doubt that other forces with less-than-admirable motives are at work here.
On the face of it, the Syrian civil war is just that and there is rarely little value in choosing a side when that mostly just opens you up to significant blowback. This is the main thesis behind the group urging the US not become involved. OTOH, there is the Israel factor to consider and that’s never been an easy call. For me, it’s the one factor that says the US should do something with that alliance in mind.
Isolationism is bad but imperialism is good, eh? The WSJ is off their rockers if this is their argument for an attack on Syria.
The WSJ is just as liberal as the NY Times on every page outside the editorial page. No surprise it seeps onto that page from time to time.
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.