FOX Republican Debates!

[CC1]

BTW - I am quite familiar with the isolationist wing of the Republican party through history. I do not agree with it. It was naive then and it is naive now.

You guys would have sat and ate popcorn while Hitler rolled through all of Europe and Africa.

What are the isolationist going to do when Iran has a nuclear weapon? Do you guys think that just because you will have pulled out of the Middle East and left the oil and Israel to the whims of Middle Eastern despots that Iran and others will not explode one in America? Naive I say!

Originally Posted by CC1

BTW - I am quite familiar with the isolationist wing of the Republican party through history. I do not agree with it. It was naive then and it is naive now.

You guys would have sat and ate popcorn while Hitler rolled through all of Europe and Africa.

And so would the founding fathers! Hmmm, pretty good company to be in. You are essentially saying you don't agree with the founding fathers!

John Quincy Adams said, "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America’s heart, her benedictions, and her prayers. But she does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

19th century politician Henry Clay explained to Hungarian patriot Louis Kossuth that if America gave aid to his cause, we would have abandoned "our ancient policy of amity and non-intervention." He explained further: "By the policy to which we have adhered since the days of Washington. . . we have done more for the cause of liberty in the world than arms could effect; we have shown to other nations the way to greatness and happiness. . . . Far better is it for ourselves, for Hungary, and the cause of liberty, that, adhering to our pacific system and avoiding the distant wars of Europe, we should keep our lamp burning brightly on this western shore, as a light to all nations, than to hazard its utter extinction amid the ruins of fallen and falling republics in Europe."

Lincoln's Secretary of State William Seward (the man who bought Alaska from Russia) responded to France's request for the United States to help Poland by defending, "our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations."

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Chan

And so would the founding fathers! Hmmm, pretty good company to be in.

So you admit you would have let Hitler take the rest of the world? If so I think that says plenty about your view.

Originally Posted by CC1

So you admit you would have let Hitler take the rest of the world? If so I think that says plenty about your view.

I would have followed the founding fathers' advice and maintained a non-interventionist policy. However, once Hitler started across the Atlantic toward the United States I would have called on Congress to declare war.

If you don't like the founding fathers' non-interventionist policies, I strongly suggest that you work toward having the Constitution changed to allow the United States to carry out your globalist tendencies.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Chan

I would have followed the founding fathers' advice and maintained a non-interventionist policy. However, once Hitler started across the Atlantic toward the United States I would have called on Congress to declare war.

That would have been to little too late. Don't forget that at the time the USA was not considered the world's top military power as it became after the war.

If Hitler had conquored Europe and Africa and had all of those resources at his disposal he would have been almost impossible to conquor. As it was we barely defeated him.

I am so glad you posted what the isolationist view actually means in real world terms. You have shown what a nutty unworkable view it is.

Originally Posted by CC1

That would have been to little too late. Don't forget that at the time the USA was not considered the world's top military power as it became after the war.

If Hitler had conquored Europe and Africa and had all of those resources at his disposal he would have been almost impossible to conquor. As it was we barely defeated him.

I am so glad you posted what the isolationist view actually means in real world terms. You have shown what a nutty unworkable view it is.

Lincoln's Secretary of State William Seward (the man who bought Alaska from Russia) responded to France's request for the United States to help Poland by defending, "our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations." I agree with his statement. The policy that had been America's from the days of the founding fathers (whose memories your interventionist views spit upon) is indeed straight, absolute, and peculiar to other (interventionist) nations.

Why do you have such utter contempt for the founding fathers and their view of foreign policy?

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Chan

Why do you have such utter contempt for the founding fathers and their view of foreign policy?

Indeed... let's call it like it is.

Those who want to leave portions of the constitution need to stop saying "Y'all are crazy... we don't see it that way... I disagree with you" etc.

They need to say it like it is.

Go ahead and say "I wholeheartedly disagree with the non-interventionism of the Constitution and feel that it needs to be changed"

Then do what you have to do to change the constitution.

Until then... don't knock those who try to uphold it in the face of constant disregard for the document which is the law of the land.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Chan

Lincoln's Secretary of State William Seward (the man who bought Alaska from Russia) responded to France's request for the United States to help Poland by defending, "our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations." I agree with his statement. The policy that had been America's from the days of the founding fathers (whose memories your interventionist views spit upon) is indeed straight, absolute, and peculiar to other (interventionist) nations.

Why do you have such utter contempt for the founding fathers and their view of foreign policy?

Why do you have utter contempt for reality?

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Chan

Lincoln's Secretary of State William Seward (the man who bought Alaska from Russia) responded to France's request for the United States to help Poland by defending, "our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations." I agree with his statement. The policy that had been America's from the days of the founding fathers (whose memories your interventionist views spit upon) is indeed straight, absolute, and peculiar to other (interventionist) nations.

Why do you have such utter contempt for the founding fathers and their view of foreign policy?

Neither Lincoln nor Seward were founding fathers. The founding fathers also lived in a vastly different time.

AND

I believe under Jefferson, the United States of America interviened in Tripoli and took on the Barbary Pirates.

AND

our actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan ARE issues of Amercian National Security. they are not interventionist actions unrelated to America's own interests.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by CC1

BTW - I am quite familiar with the isolationist wing of the Republican party through history. I do not agree with it. It was naive then and it is naive now.

You guys would have sat and ate popcorn while Hitler rolled through all of Europe and Africa.

What are the isolationist going to do when Iran has a nuclear weapon? Do you guys think that just because you will have pulled out of the Middle East and left the oil and Israel to the whims of Middle Eastern despots that Iran and others will not explode one in America? Naive I say!