Essay:A Defense of Interventionism

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This essay is an original work. Please comment only on the talk page.

I know a lot of people at CP strongly oppose interventionism (see Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?). I don't. And here's why.

I believe that the West has a moral duty to defend civilization. There are several justifications for going to war. When a dictatorship takes provocative actions toward the United States, as Iran has been doing, the U.S. must react swiftly. We can't allow our enemies to walk all over us. And it has to be the U.S. You think Canada, or Europe, or Israel, can do it alone? We need to defeat our enemies. You want the War on Terror to end? End it properly. Trump just called off talks with the Taliban because they killed 12 people.

No, I'm not a neocon. I hate neocons. I'm a social con. And I'm not an ideologue.

You can't just call interventionism a neoconservative ideology and just leave it at that. I support interventionism because the U.S. is the West's last line of defense. You need to intervene in order to stop the world from crumbling. Also, interventionism is necessary to Westernize the world. Yes, I think we should Westernize the world, ultimately. And yes, I believe that sometimes, war is necessary. What are we supposed to do with totalitarian, anti-Western dictatorships. I will say that the negotiations with North Korea are working extremely well! So are the talks with Russia, and the "trade war" with China.

Wait a minute. The trade war...is working? If tariffs work, why can't decisive military action work? Is there a difference? Maybe. But in my opinion, it's the same idea.

Above all, the goal is not to let our enemies push us around. Remember how well Appeasement worked? It didn't. It took a World War to stop Hitler. For that matter, it took a Cold War to stop the USSR. But there's a difference between economics and military policy, right? I'm not so sure. Are sanctions and tariffs really that different from guns and bombs? Or from missiles and nukes? Remember, it took two nuclear weapons to end the Second World War. And we're probably going to need to take out the Taliban in order to end the War on Terror. Maybe we will need to go to war with Iran. Hypothetically, I would support that. If the Islamic Republic of Iran keeps acting provocatively, what are we supposed to do?

Go ahead, compare me to John Bolton. At least he cares about defeating terrorism.

And by the way, so does Prager University.[1][2][3]

References