When isolationism ruled the land

  • Article by: George Will
  • Updated: September 22, 2013 - 11:02 PM

A review of the events before American involvement in World War II is in order.

  • 6
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 6 of 6
hermajestySep. 22, 1310:33 PM

In the 1930s, we had two military dictatorships each trying to conquer the world and enslave the inhabitants of the conquered countries. There's nothing comparable now, just a lot of corporate interests that want to use the U.S. military to their advantage. I think a lot of people have noticed that the only "humanitarian crises" for which the Establishment types want military action are the ones that take place in or near oil fields. (During the Vietnam War, most Americans didn't know about the potential oil fields in the South China Sea.)

11
1
pumiceSep. 23, 13 7:34 AM

Re: "I think a lot of people have noticed that the only 'humanitarian crises' for which the Establishment types want military action are the ones that take place in or near oil fields." And then only if no sacrifice is asked of the Establishment. And the Establishment's bought-and-paid-for Congresscritters aren't asked to vote and, especially, don't have to levy a tax to pay for military action.

8
0
luzhishenSep. 23, 13 7:38 AM

Isolationism is the new one-size-fits-all response to people who are sick and tired of fighting discretionary wars. Try again.

7
0
merkinSep. 23, 13 7:58 AM

At the moment we're fighting dictators, but not dictators who have the means and will to take over the entire world. We simply cannot afford to be the world's policemen. The money and man hours we spend bombing people across the globe could be better spent building bridges to a better future here at home. Why do we need a military that has a larger budget than the next twelve countries combined? Why do we need more aircraft carriers than the entire world?

Let's inject some sensibility into the military budget and scale back our interventionist leanings. Scale back the military and scale up our infrastructure investment.

8
0
gandalf48Sep. 23, 1311:15 AM

I believe the correct term today is non-interventionist; no one wants complete isolationism. Most Americans agree we shouldn't be isolationist but instead it should be our businesses/companies and our people working with foreign groups rather than always using our military to intact with other nations. We shouldn't intervene in internal civil wars, depose democratically elected politicians (i.e Iran in the 1950's) and our first move shouldn't be to invade with our military. Yep, what I just described is much better represented by the term non-interventionism rather than isolationism.

3
0
pumiceSep. 23, 13 1:56 PM

Re: "Isolationism is the new one-size-fits-all response to people who are sick and tired of fighting discretionary wars." What is George Will's alternative to isolationism, luzhishen? Is he making the argument that military interventionism is the only alternative? Which allows for humanitarian aid and for economic assistance--isolationism or non-military interventionism? Which is possible in the context of globalism--isolationism or non-military interventionism? Which presents our exceptional political/economic system at its best--isolationism or non-military interventionism? Which is more efficacious at winning hearts and minds--isolationism or non-military interventionism?

2
0
  • 1 - 6 of 6

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT