Replies

Unfortunately, because of the continuing proliferation of WMD across the globe, this is probably not a viable solution to insure the safety of this country in the long run.

As for myself, I am perfectly happy to give that "Missile Defense Shield" thing a whirl, and see how that works. Won't know 'till we try!! At least it is Constitutional National Defense (if one wishes to pay any attention to that musty old scrap of hemp).

And "Non-Interventionism" speaks primarily to a posture of military defense (as opposed to military interventionism), not complete withdrawal from world affairs. China has nuclear weapons? Well, sure, we can try the "direct military confrontation" thing, but there's also the option of quietly increasing trade ties with India, while giving a wink and a nod to Japanese expansion of its military defense capabilities.

Neither option either increases American taxes, extends American military involvements, or decreases civil liberties at home. In fact, both ideas enjoy moral rectitude on their own -- generally speaking, Free Trade is a good thing, and that includes free trade with India; and as far as defensive capabilities, military self-sufficiency for Japan is nothing more or less than that which is moral for any Republic.

But the fact that China would thereby be hamstrung between looking West (at India) and looking East (at Japan) is pretty nice gravy on the Moral steak, IMHO. Meanwhile, US troops and taxes are able to stay home.

"Non-Interventionism" simply speaks to the policy of viewing military confrontation as the weapon of last resort, not the first.

I should also point out that foreign aid has always been part of a policy to stabilize regional conflicts.

This is assuming that it is morally correct in the first place to EVER "tax the poor people of a rich country to subsidize the rich people of a poor country" (which is the essence of Foreign Aid). But even if that idea were philosophically moral in the first place, it plainly hasn't worked.

Interventionists subsidized the corrupt Batista, and managed to so radicalize the Cuban peasantry that they allowed the murderous Castro to come to power.
Interventionists subsidized the corrupt Somoza, and managed to so radicalize the Nicaraguan peasantry that they allowed the murderous Sandanistas to come to power.
Interventionists subsidized the corrupt Shah, and managed to so radicalize the Iranian peasantry that they allowed the murderous Ayatollahs to come to power. So, in order to "counterbalance" the murderous Ayatollahs, Interventionists subsidized Saddam Hussein of Iraq. That ended up working out real good too.
Interventionists subsidized the maniacal Taliban, and they thanked us by carting barrel-loads of US dollars down to the local Al-Queda training camps where fanatics were poring over schematics of the World Trade Center.

Whoa... Hold on a minute... you are saying that this (inherently illegitimate) policy of "taxing the poor people of a rich country to subsidize the rich people of a poor country" is intended to stabilize regional conflicts?

Good grief. With "stability" like this, who needs Armageddon?

In the Arab-Israeli conflict, with the two likely outcomes of Arabs destroying Israel or Israel nuking its neighbors, a little financial aid is a perfectly reasonable solution. Right now we have sufficient power and money to offer to strongly influence the stability of this conflict.

Exactly what was wrong with the (NON-subsidized, in 1967) Six-Day War solution of Israel grabbing enough empty desert in a pre-emptive strike to effectively provide that little nation with the "defensive depth" she required?

All that US Foreign Aid has done is shoe-horn the Israelis out of the Sinai (leaving Egyptian armor and mechanized infantry that much closer to Tel Aviv if Islamist radicals ever do come to power in Cairo) and provided the American-killing PLO its own "mini-state" and enough camel-bags full of cash to buy whole shiploads of illegal anti-tank weapons, no doubt intended for Israeli kindergarten school-buses.

Oh, and US foreign aid has also helped to socialize the Israeli economy... an Israeli economy which, given the economic success which family- and education-conscious Jews have so often accomplished in every corner of the globe, would be far better off were it more capitalistic.

Let's see... did I miss anything? Oh, yeah, it got the buck-toothed peanut farmer Carter a purty little photo-op at US taxpayer expense. Whoop-de-do.

Now, let's see.... this is supposed to be some kind of world-wise "pragmatic realpolitik"? Because it sure looks like the same counterproductive, pork-barrel, rent-seeking practiced by every other special interest lobby in Washington, and there ain't a dime's worth of Virtue to it.

NOTE -- as I believe that you are sincerely arguing in good faith, please do not take my sarcasm personally. But don't imagine I don't mean every criticism harshly, either; frankly, I do.