News Flash! We're Not Going To Invade Aruba!

by J.J. Jackson - Date: 2006-12-09 - Word Count: 1254 Share This!

During our own struggle for independence from the British crown, we Americans sought out help. Eventually we enlisted the French who were admittedly hesitant to aid the upstart colonists against England. They knew they faced retribution should the revolution go badly. But the facts of the matter are that France did help us and they did help us win our fight for liberty.

Sometimes that history is lost even by some conservatives. History being lost on liberals I understand. Considering that they are eternally wed to provably failed ideas such as fascism, socialism, communism or any other form of top down government you can imagine, dealing with history would be devastating to their fragile minds.

Just look at how the left has bastardized the meaning of "general Welfare" into the accepted belief that government can tax and spend on anything it decides. Of course this ignores James Madison's clear words to the contrary in Federalist 41. But what's a little revisionism among comrades?

For conservatives to ignore history completely boggles my mind. Hey, I'll admit that our founding fathers made mistakes. And one of mistakes some of our founding fathers made was not understanding that evil is evil, that evil cannot be appeased and that when evil is appeased it will eventually come looking for those that appeased it.

John Quincy Adams summed up this philosophy best when he proclaimed "[America] is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." In other words, thanks to those that helped us in our liberation, but don't any of the rest of you unworthy souls come to our door begging us for help.

Basically it is nothing short of arrogance.

Today, the "paleo-conservatives" carry on this tradition. They love liberty and promote it but basically only for themselves. Someone else wants liberty? Well, help yourselves. Which begs a question about why we asked the French for help in the first place.

To help others in the pursuit of liberty, they fear, risks that we will become entangled in foreign affairs from which we will never escape, breed hatred of us as a nation because we will piss off one side of the conflict, and even run the risk of becoming an imperialist nation or at least be perceived as one. While they are capable of seeing right from wrong ultimately they suffer from a debilitating phobia that prevents them from doing anything to correct wrongs in an attempt to simply remain "neutral". They call it "non-interventionism". Others call it "isolationism".

I dare say that the thinking of these conservatives is only a small step away from should their own mother get mugged on the other side of the street they would bow their heads and avert their eyes. As she cried for help they would begin muttering furiously about not wanting to become involved in the affairs of others and quickly shuffle away. They might even throw in a justification that the unalienable rights of men are not for everyone which is akin to what they do when they say that some people are just simply not worthy of having such rights protected by just governments.

Instead of hacking off the bad people of the world, they would rather wind up with the bad people in power and those who were asking for help hacked off at us instead. Instead of defeating one enemy they would rather have two.

Thanks, but no thanks. That one-sized fits all foreign policy is akin to zero-tolerance policies against weapons in schools that get children suspended for having a toe nail clipper in their locker or an inch long plastic gun with their GI Joe.

Mention Iraq to these modern day caretakers of the junior Adams' philosophy and they shout loudly about how we should not be there helping the Iraqis. But point out to them that even we had outside help in our own fight for independence and either they will start chanting "neo-con" over and over or they will curl up in a little ball and start sucking their thumb while mumbling something or other about being right despite clear and historic examples.

They hyperventilate the second the United States even so much as breathes in the direction of a foreign country or ponders coming to the aid of those that ask for it.

Make no mistake. Becoming involved in the affairs of nations willy-nilly is not something the United States should be doing. We should never become an "imperial" power. But eventually common sense has to prevail.

If the people of some country want to set up a dictatorial regime and live under that regime, not harming others around the world and freely letting those that wish to leave go without shooting their family members as punishment let them do it. But history shows that these failed systems of government and the tyrants they breed never stay confined. They will eventually lash out against not only their own citizenry but others as well. And when they do, for America to sit idly by implies that America endorses liberty for us but not for others.

Did I mention the arrogance of such a position yet?

All ignoring evil as the paleo-conservatives suggest we do is allow evil to gather strength with which to later attack us. For paleo-conservatives to even get involved in a fight they have to personally be punched in the nose practicing the same sick isolationism and refusal to help others in need that lead to Hitler running roughshod over Europe and murdering millions of Jews. Call me crazy, but that is not a philosophy I would want to be touting as a conservative, nor one that I would want other conservatives promoting either.

Much like we went to the French, Iraqis fleeing Saddam Hussein's brutal regime had for years been flocking to America and pleading with us to help them defeat a man whose brutal history was laid out for the world to see. Should we have been arrogant and refused to help? Should we have turned a blind eye to people who, in the face of terrorism, are willing to march to the ballot boxes to elect their own government?

Invading Aruba, sitting there in the tranquil Caribbean not bothering anyone so that we could have some nice beachfront property is "imperialism" and unjust. Storming the beaches of South Africa so that we can control their diamond mines is "imperialism" and unjust. We're not doing that.

Sometimes, I dare say, that being the "champion" and "vindicator" of our own citizens means sending out soldiers to areas like Saddam's Iraq before the policies of such madmen and their allies reach the shores of America and result in the deaths of citizens of these United States. Saddam was a bad man. Like it or not. And in the process of helping those that have plead with you for help, you will make a few friends that will stand by you in your time of need as well.

But maybe you don't care about that. Maybe you are arrogant and think that America will never need the help of others. History too shows that all great nations eventually flounder however.

How would these conservatives that detest the Iraq War have felt back during the American Revolution? Would they have howled against the founding fathers asking France for help? Would they have succeeded in keeping France out of the war? If so, today they may very well still be sitting around in Boston bemoaning the British soldiers quartered in their homes and railing against outrageous taxes on tea.

Related Tags: iraq, saddam, evil, imperialism, conservative, paleo, neo, john adams.isolationism, socialism, communism

J.J. Jackson is the owner and Lead Editor of American Conservative Politics - The Land of the Free and American Conservative Daily. He is also the owner of American Infidel T-shirts & Gifts

Your Article Search Directory : Find in Articles

© The article above is copyrighted by it's author. You're allowed to distribute this work according to the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs license.

Recent articles in this category:

Most viewed articles in this category: