The opposite of the Defn of "isolationist" is "interventionist", which pleases parasitic lobbyist constituencies no end. There are literally trillions more to be made by running American troops around the world. Unfortunately besides robbing our treasury that proves time and again to end up killing more Americans, and hundreds of thousands of foreigners. We hear of mass graves, but full reports of civilian casualties are carefully ignored, because as a prev. SecState Albright would say, "they're worth it", as she said about 1/2 million dead Iraqis last decade.
All such interventions are deserving of in-depth examination and investigation. None do. If you follow the pitiful Congressional record, most are contrived and controlled, and the rest simply based on outright lies, from "remember the Maine", to Gulf of Tonkin, to WMDs in Iraq. Everyone wishes a nice honorable war like WWII, but it isn't what these interventions are about. They are exercises in power by gainful insiders.
The only way Americans can be placated is with inventions and great secrecy, rather than full disclosure and published facts. Mr. Wilson may be the start of a tide of whistle-blowers who will continue to disclose facts until incursions are eventually based on reality rather than political profiteering.
Nothing in the Constitution allows running around the world poking superior military power into other sovereign countries, except in the case of absolutely verifiable threats.
As I told my Israeli friends, after spending 1968 watching friends get blown up outside of Haifa, I'll fight to the death to defend my family and country, but not Israel or Saudi Arabia, etc., even if both disappear. What we now have are out-of-control factions using gov't basically for the purposes of organized crime. There is no law nor honor involved.
That opinion could change given full disclosure and adequate reason. Neither is likely. |
