Look, I'm not attempting to debate the beneficial qualities of the current definition of non interventionism compared to isolationism. It was my interpretation that the definition between both, were as I was taught in high school, much earlier than 2005. You pointed out that there is a definite difference in current PC regarding the two terms. I do not disagree entirely with the current definition of non interventionism. However, I do not think that all foreign entanglements cease and desist. If it wasn't for Frances intervention in the Revolution, we probably would still be a British colony, regardless of France's current alliance with the US. The Monroe doctrine prevented further colonization by European powers. The Boxer Rebellion prevented further colonization of China, again regardless of current alliance. Does anyone believe that the Axis alliance would not have caused many more deaths on American shores, had we not entered into agreements with Russia, Britain and many other nations? I think diplomacy is the better choice than war. Does anyone now with the results clearly history, believe that NATO alliance was not crucial to disrupting the spread of communism and ultimately let the economy of the world reduce the Soviet Union into bancruptcy by the use of detente? With several nations of the world having not only the means, methods and technology to have WMD, it behooves us for our own security to have alliances that deter power grabbing governments. I do agree that we should not be the world's policemen. I do believe that other nations must take an equal share in the responsibility. Only by these alliances can detente be acheived, thus permitting the economic effects to have time to do its magic. All people are materialistic. Those that have less than their neighbor will attempt to gain equality, thus the Jones principle. That is why capitalism will work in developing nations and especially in those nations with stringent religious views. That is why America is the target. It threatens those religious leaders in power and influence among its own citizenry. With an entirely non interventionism policy against these alliances, there is not time for the people of these nations to understand the benefits of a democracy compared to the caste mentality, dictatorial mandates by its leaders and the massive restrictive power of organized religion on them. People are mass and it takes force from a different direction for this mass to change course. These principles of Newton apply equally as well to people as a whole, as it does to physics.
In conclusion, I think Palin/McCain ticket to be the best choice for our country at the current time, especially when one considers Obama, the economy, exteme religious regimes, the liberal tendency of the American public that prevents construction of cheaper and cleaner energy policies, taxation and the liberals determined attacks on the 2nd Amendment. I cannot be any clearer regarding my views. And I certainly do not care for being called as cited
On the other hand doing all these things, and more, makes you at best (by default) a nutcase radical; and at worst a treasonous anti-american.
for opinions that differ from his interpretation of them.
