What If ...

2015  02  12

The United States of America was founded on the ideal of freedom. Many of our families came here so that they would be free to practice their religions in peace, or to leave behind brutally bloody conflicts in their old homelands.

That policy holds as true today as it did in the 1600s and 1700s. If you come to us seeking peace, welcome to our nation.

If you seek strife, divisiveness, or battle, this is not the place for you.

Really, it’s as simple as that.

But, you say, you had your own Civil War. We did, yes. When the USA was barely a fledgling, less than 100 years old as a nation, her unity was challenged from within. It did great damage and has not been repeated.

But, you say, the USA ought to keep her nose out of the affairs of the rest of the world.

She could do that, this is true, and perhaps she should. Such a thing could possibly be arranged.

She has everything she needs right here within her own borders. Shall she close her borders? Shall she say to all: you may not enter; if you are here, you may leave but if you do you will never return, nor any of your descendants, ever . . . ?

Should the USA say to the world: leave me alone and I will leave you alone? I will keep within my own borders all of my trade. I will keep within my borders all of my wealth, all of my creativity, all of my strength . . . I will take care of my own and you do the same.

Shall she join with Canada and Mexico? 

And shall that new entity, North America United, tell Europe and Asia, and Africa, and South America to close themselves off from one another as well, to use their own resources as they see fit and use them to care for their own?

Shall she then say to the world: fight if you choose; I will not . . . ?

Suppose that were to happen. Suppose she did say those things.

Europe and Asia would be in the position of being able to fight it out, to destroy their own people with war and hatred. South America would cope as best she could; Africa likewise.

All have abundant resources that need only developing. If the only trade that can take place is within the borders of each, perhaps the needless exploitation of resources would cease. Perhaps resources would instead be cared for properly – because if they are not it will be the people themselves and their livelihoods and homes that will be at risk. Perhaps it would begin to make sense to look to sun, wind, and water for energy sources.

If Europe and Asia were one nation, insular, yes they could duke it out until they destroy themselves without any intervention from the rest of the world.

On the other hand, there would be a great incentive to work things out peaceably. Their people would have to come to that conclusion, probably the hard way.

Suppose, for a moment, a different scenario.

Suppose, if you will, that nobody wants to change anything.

Suppose the Judeo-Christian world goes to war with Islam, for example. It wouldn’t be the first time. Only this time the weapons are much more far-reaching. Suppose current events escalate into global warfare.

Judeo-Christianity might get pushed beyond tolerance and into open warfare if Islam doesn’t correct its own aggressive ones. Where are the leaders of Islam? Do they not want to accept responsibility for the behaviors of their own people? If they do not, there should be no argument about someone else finally stepping up to the plate to do it for them.

Do these leaders forget the power of the Judeo-Christian nations? When it was our own whose aggression and atrocities broke the peace of our world, a few short years ended it. They were bloody, vicious, and costly years – but it was done. And the USA did not stay out of it. She had to be poked hard, but she did not stay out of it.