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 ...
What’s a war in the last 224 years that we didn’t intervene in that we should have intervened in? It’s a short list. I can’t see how the world would have been better off if we had intervened in the Crimean war or the Boer war.
is it “isolationist” to oppose getting involved in Syria’s civil war?
How many Saudi investors/board members do they have?
How much money in brown paper bags (or gifts of $0.5M jewelry) have they gotten lately?
Question for the chicken hawks: Is Switzerland isolationist because they refuse to get involved? Syria is a lot closer to Zurich than they are to New York.
And you can bet the slave-labor loving sucmbags at the WSJ never seen a battlefield.
Exactly. Whether you were for or against Bush’s interventions, the fact remains that he took us to war against Al Qaeda and the Talibs. And he committed to a decade of follow-on war to make sure neither they nor the old Baathists would return to power.
Obama’s interventions, every one including this one, are designed to put Muslim Brotherhood and the jihadists into power. Big difference.
Actually, the U.S. did go to war with France.
Helping Obama save face. They love all their crony capitalist straphangers.
Is there some military intervention that the WSJ opposes? Say, invade Chile. Does opposition to this military intervention make the WSJ isolationist? If not, why not?
WSJ goes for the smear on Syria, as it has in the past with the immigration issue. If they have no argument, they reach for the character assassination card and charge it to the limit. Pathetic.
If the WSJ op-ed writers could give all illegals amnesty as they’d like, all the illegals could be drafted to go fight in Syria.
A WSJ win-win.
There’s a big difference between isolation and not wanting to enter an unjustified and unauthorized war predicated on false charges.
WSJ = global banksters
“The Robert Taft Republicans Return - Isolationism has never served the interests of America, or the GOP.”
No. Obviously Amerca’s interest would be better promoted by continuous war and meddling in every muslim dogfight that comes up and every tribal rumble in Africa. Sure, a lot of brave American soldiers will be killed or wounded as they separate mad dogs from each other. And, of course, it will cost the American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars confiscated from their earnings. But, hey, if the Wall Street Journal says we need to go to war who can argue with that? Wouldn’t want to be called an isolationist or “surrender monkey”.
Now that’s sad news.
Not officially. I know the quasi war. But I mean full mobilezation. when was the last time Napoleon did anything half assed?
Here’s a big difference, the Vatican is having an official worldwide prayer vigil over this No way are they not going to deem it aggression that’s trouble and it was not the case in the Iraq war
Murdoch’s News Corporation “pays” a negative corporate tax rate. In other words, the government subsidized the production of this article. Don’t bite the hand, as they say.
This is NOT isolationalism!!!
1) Where's the proof that Assad used chemical weapons? I've not seen the "news" media offer any. This to me is proof that there is none, as there would be wall-to-wall coverage of such proof in support of their selected boy-king wannabe.
2) We have other ways and methods to deal with the Syrian civil war. Acts of war should always be a last resort (unless you are King Zero and you've had your feelings hurt and you're feeling petulant).
3) Prove that US military action would do more than help Al Qaeda and the MB, our enemies (but not Obama's).
Declining to throw bombs around willy-nilly is not isolationism, it’s good policy. Insisting that we talk about it first within Congress is not isolationism, it’s how the government is supposed to work. If, under sober consideration, Congress finds that the interests of the United States require it, then we go forward; if not, not. None of this is isolationism.
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.