The Interventionist Foreign Policies of other nations helping us win the Revolutionary War.
I am currently in discussion/debate with someone with regard to Dr. Paul's and our Constitution's stance on a non interventionist foreign policy. One of the things he brought up was interesting and I'd like to get your feedback. His comments are below with regard to the Interventionist Foreign Policies of other nations as they relate to helping us win the Revolutionary War. Any thoughts, please? See Below:
_____________________________________________________
If it wasn't for foreign aid from other nations both indirectly in the form of loans and training and directly in the form of military support we may not have won the American Revolution and our founders may have been hanging from the gallows before they ever got the chance to right the constitution. Our founders were isolationists by necessity. ... Read MoreFor our first 100 years, we had little choice to be anything but isolationists. I highly doubt our founders with their Judeo-Christian beliefs would remain on the sidelines in the face of much suffering throughout the world given the power to do something about it.
A Perfect Nation
This is more Feedback I received via email that I thought would be of interest:
_____________________________________________________________
"Then, if someday we became an absolutely perfect nation, I would still only even consider intervention with other countries if there was a strong cry for help. But at the same time, one must ask, why wouldn't the people of that land take arms? Our Founding Fathers picked a great time to start their battle, they knew it would be advantageous that Britain was already at war on other fronts. There will always be fighting between nations or peoples, but whenever we get involved it weakens us financially and militarily. The US is not crowned (nor should it be) the adjudicator or policeman of the world.
Apart from that, I would still stick to the traditional libertarian view as it applies to most issues: the more power we give to our gov't, the more they will abuse it and/or screw things up. Look at the Iraq War. We (may have) had good intentions, but now a lot of Iraqi citizens hate the US, and we are seen as imperialists. And Halliburton/KBR are making a fat paycheck.
I would also point out that staying out of other countries' political affairs is not necessarily isolationism, it is non-interventionism; isolationism includes non-interventionism as well as protectionism (economic isolationism), something RP does not support."
Right Every Wrong
Here is some feedback I got via email that I thought may generate some interest:
1. "Winning" is not as much having and employing military tools as it is having resolve. A people whose resolve is unshakable perhaps can be killed, but they can never be defeated. Even those who have the physical resources often lose by losing their resolve. Our founders understood and believed in what they were fighting for (as does Dr. Paul) and our enemies did not have an equal commitment. Their resolve ran out, not their military and naval resources. If we had not been aided in the way we were by the French and others, we may not have won at the time and in the places we won, but as long as their belief in individual liberty and independence and their resolve in behalf of those things was intact, we would eventually have won.
2. "Our founders" were not only the names you and I know. There were all the people who held their values. Hang 50 of them, 100 of them, 1,000 of them 10,000 of them...that would make no difference other than that the names we know today would be different names of founders.
3. Our founders were not "isolationists." Most of them were non-interventionists. They were not eager to "right every wrong" all over the world as government policy (that would impose the costs upon some who might not have agreed), though as individuals they might well have contributed money and even their lives to specific foreign causes. How many causes can you or I fund with our money and/or our life? Are any individual's resources unlimited?
Your friend is wrong on many points.
Isn't funny how things turn out
If France hadn't assisted us when we asked for their help. There would have been no America to assist them in WWII.
Good deeds do reap rewards...Although it may take well over a 100 years.
And without Russia coming to our aid when Lincoln asked for their help, our states may not have remained United.
The key to our creation and survival was not due to the intervention of other nations, but to those nations responding to our request for help. That's a big difference to what we are doing to other nations today who have not requested our help.
The aid given during the
The aid given during the American revolution was not out of the goodness of other nations,but of one that sees a benefit to their own country/people/or those in control.The detest of the British empire was shared with other countries but what if there was some sort of U.N. in those days?All united to benefit each other even though it is of one of a despotic nature/action.The revolution would have been put off to a later date.
So as history shows,we have America seeking independence and a ally in France with a "hatred" towards the British empire,the common enemy.
Was France established at the time one of a free country to which the Americans were fighting for? No it was a monarchy and only aided us for their own desires,that monarchy fell in 1789.
This is what this government does today.To intervene in affairs of other countries for the benefit of themselves,not to "free" people.The true motivations are covered up by the rhetoric of spreading democracy.
The form of government established is nowhere defined as one of any charitable duties but only in those few "powers" as instructed by the constitution.The defense of this country does not fall on foreign lands but only on the shores and boundaries of this country.
This governments foreign policy is one that pokes it's nose into others affairs and thus makes us all subject to hate and terrorism.It's not a policy of peace but of nation building,propping up regimes and of conquest.Intervention may lead to friendships but also as history shows,to making enemies.
It is a empire out of control.
------------------------------------------
"I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." - Jefferson Davis
"A government of reason is better than one of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820
Thank You
Very informative points, thank you for taking the time to share them.
Didn't we ASK
for the help?? People from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. are not coming over here lobbying for our military to come into their country and rid them of terrorists. TOTALLY different situation.
Good Point
Thanks for sharing. I'll assume their are plenty of examples of people pleading for American involvement in WW 1 and WWII.
I appreciate your feedback.
Yes
those wars had countries pleading for our help. This war on "terror" has nothing to do with Christian vs. Islam like this guy is trying to portray.
appreciate
I would really appreciate some feedback here.