Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were right, but the world was very different then and isolationism was a better way, but that was before mass
communications and rapid mass transit, including the intercontinental variety. I love Buchanan, because he is so enthusiastically sincere, but he is
not realistic. I slept too late to hear Bush's speech, but I did hear him make one very good point. The spread of democracy throughout the world is
essential to the longevity of our own. During the Cold War, the imperative was containment. In the 21st century, we must be more proactive,
diplomatically and otherwise.
A conservative, constrained foreign policy is not the same as isolationism. The United States should play a role globally. The United States can
serve as an arbiter in disputes, like under Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt helped negotiate an agreement between Japan and Russia. Howver, the United
States should not intervene militarily unless it is absolutely vital to its interests.
With reference to your comments on the Cold War. Containment involved halting the spread of Communism and Soviet expansionism. It did not involve
using U.S. forces to overthrow regimes and establish democracies (nation-building). Even at the height of the Cold War, the United States never
directly engaged the Soviet Union militarily. There is a difference in supplying the mujahedeen and Nicaraguan Contras with weapons to fight the
Soviets and using U.S. troops to overthrow regimes militarily in order to establish democracies.
Also, containment was an utter failure for the most part. Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam, and many countries in South American and Africa all fell
to Communism. Vietnam fell to Communism and has posed no threat to the United States. Just an interesting thought....
Also, Bush said: "...survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." This statement does not line
up with history. The world has always been filled with dictators, but America (for the most part) has always been free. In fact, we have proped up
many dictators over the years. We did it all throughout the Cold War. In fact, the U.S. has supported some of the most brutal dictators in the
Even if we do actively overthrow dictatorships in the Middle East, can we be sure that democracy will take root? Probably not. When western
Europe's colonial empires were falling part, dictatorships and authoritarian regimes arose to "fill in the gap." The overthrow of the king in
Egypt produced another dictator--Nasser. After the monarchy was abolished in Germany after WW1, the Weimar Republic fell to Hitler's Nazi regime.
Many will say: "Well we did it in Germany..." Yes, but we de-Nazified Germany.....but you cannot "de-Islamify" the Middle East. The comparison
is not quite the same.
A quote from Madison: "No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
John Q. Adams: "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the
champion and vindicator only of her own."
Also by John Q. Adams: "Civil liberty can be established on no foundation of human reason which will not at the same time demonstrate the right of
religious freedom." Can religious freedom be ascribed to the Middle East?...I think not.
[edit on 2/21/2005 by XX_SicSemperTyrannis_XX]