I Feel that depending on which article im reading, my position changes slightly. I have yet to listen to the speech, but between the article on Henry Cabot Lodge, the definitions of isolationism vs. internationalism, and the positions on the opinion poll, I am an "internationalist" and a "strong reservationsist".  I agree with Secretary of State, Cordell Hull with his statement, "We may seek to withdraw from world affairs, but, we cannot withdraw from the world itself."  I believe that decisions made, can and will, effect the U.S. no matter how far away they are. If Saddam Hussien threatens in any way that he may have weapons of mass destruction, it is our duty to make sure they remain at rest. If we decide to isolate ouselves as a country, it no longer matters what decision we make. If the U.S. decided to remain peaceful and docile towards Saddam, he could decide to use the weapons which may or may not be in his posession, eliminating the U.S.  In my opinion the U.S. must remain involved with the league of nations and the decisions made by the leaders of other countries.  In times of war, however, the U.S. government must consult the people or congress, to maintain it's distribution of power. There are some instances when an executive decision must be made, as I feel that the war on Iraq was warranted.  Senetor Henry Lodge was opposed to Woodrow Wilson's proposal which would obligate the U.S. to fight future wars without the concent of congress (class handout: So Henry Lodge was one of the World's First, Villains?). I would agree with Lodges position in most situations.

On the subject of the US being the world's police?....Impossible. Considering the conflicts the US is involved in in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as it's other military commitments abroad, our military is stretched to the point of breaking. Rcruitement levels are far below goals forcing the military to institute stop-loss programs (http://www.military.com/news/article/general-stoploss-needed-through-09.html). While action in Darfur is sorely needed, that action needs to be diplomatic rather than military intervention on the part of the US. The conflict in western Sudan's Darfur region is between non-Arab rebel forces,  the Sudanese government, and loyalist Arabic tribesman. These Arabic tribesmen known as the Janjaweed have been attacking non-Arab tribes, killing and displacing them from their lands. many atrocities have been attributed to this group. Although the Sudanese government denies it, they have been shown to be arming and financing the Janjaweed because anti-government forces draw their support from these non Arab tribes. This conflict appears to be along ethnic and tribal lines rather than religious ( http://www.humanrightswatch.org/english/docs/2004/07/20/darfur9095.htm).  U.S. proposed sanctions against the Sudanese government will only deepen the plight of the people in my opinion. Vigorous international diplomacy that includes non-coercive incentives for the government of Sudan to reign in tribal militias and improve its human rights record can, and eventually will, win the day.

Did I say "and finally"?.. As far as the historical question of US involvement in the League of Nations, I must say that I agree with the constitutional argument that the US Congress must retain sole authority to decide whether the US goes to war or not. Getting into a war to just fulfill treaty obligations would not have inspired the American people to have a will to fight and would have caused deep divisions within the country. Foreign military involvement without clear reasons vital to US inerests is a poison to this country....sound familiar? I do however, support the idea that a majority of countries presenting a united diplomatic front against unjust actions by other countries and governments is vital to peace.