[quote=caroljm36]Way, way back, before any of us were born, during the Spanish Revolution, Hemingway wrote a book called “For Whom the Bell Tolls,” the title being based on a poem by John Donne. It said “ask not for whom the bell tolls/it tolls for thee” or some such. It was the line of the radical Left, which wanted us and England and France etc to get involved in that war. Many of the lefties themselves went and fought in it. Seeing the involvement of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union should have a big wake-up call, they said, that the US should end its isolation and get involved in the world because it would all come to our doorstep eventually anyway.
When I was a kid in the 1950s people were still haunted by the idea.
Now, isolationism is back…promoted by the Left??? how the world has changed. But I grant you, being isolationist/pacifist is indeed easier. It makes your moral world really simple to say “no fighting, ever” instead of engaging in conflict as we have been doing since WWII. Much easier to abstain. I would prefer we didn’t get involved in anything either. It distracts, it discomforts, it worries because you can’t see the future. I’d rather be a kid and not think about it all. But is that a responsible national policy? I don’t think so.
Nuclear weapons were not an issue back then, you would agree. Now, many nations have the capabilities of destroying other nations at the drop of a hat. My point?
Rogue nations that we anger and back into a corner can end up using WMD’s on our men and women in uniform and our citizens. When we invade militant countries in a volatile region already we are inviting violence. I don’t advocate total isolationism. But, I don’t advocate invading one country (Afghanistan) and then another country (Iraq) right after.
Bush’s agenda of holding nations responsible who harbor terrorists or criminals is a suicidal agenda that can only cause us to be pushed away by the rest of the world. To many in that region we are the aggressors - worse than Saddam. Whether that perception is true is beside the point. We will someday find ourselves at odds with the entire rest of the world with a few tag-a-long countries who just don’t want to be obliterated.
Diplomacy must be given the upmost importance. And for those who want to refer to Hitler and his ambitions there is no comparison with the present situation. Hitler was on his way to conquering Europe and from there the rest of the world and sought to rule the world with his sick ideology. America was the defender in WW2. America is the aggressor in the present (declared over by Bush??) conflict. We are still in that conflict.