reply to post by burdman30ott6
I see a distinction between "isolationism" and peace at any cost.
Seeing human nature hasn't changed for as long as recorded history takes us, the latter mentality would doom the group that adopted it. That's sooner
rather than later.
Isolationism as far as the U.S. goes, merely is an added ingredient to an inevitable world war which sucks us in when things are far worse later than
Look at the ingredients of WWII. An ineffectual League of Nations- what we have now may even be worse!!
A U.S. that made it plain that it wanted nothing to do with European conflicts.
Multiple powers, all fairly close to each other militarily- in perception, if not fact-, leaders that thought they could win through military action.
The pre-eminent world power, England, also with a policy of appeasement, at least until Poland.
Stern, meaningful threats of consequence "might" have given Hitler pause. Certainly, if the "allies" had hit him after Austria, in all likelihood
Hitler never moves against Poland, France, the Soviet Union...no holocaust...10's of millions saved....
Today, we have an rapidly expanding Chinese military, an India that has ordered more Pak-50s fighter from Russia as the U.S. F-22's. A Russian
invasion of Georgia which it still occupies without outcry. All in the face of a contracting U.S. military since Bush Senior.
In short, peace at any cost is suicidal, isolationism speeds the process to world war, given the number of nut jobs out there right now.
Toss in weapon technology which knows no borders, unlike WWII, ie. oceans no longer "protect" us and some selected intervention is warranted, IMO.
The hard part is the why, when and where.
But, certainly NOT Syria.
edit on 12-9-2013 by nwtrucker because: punctuation error