During the Korean War, a young Gordon B. Hinckley got his start helping Mormon men avoid the draft so they could serve missions (See Go Forward with Faith). How many Mormon missions kept Mormons out of combat during Vietnam? Mitt Romney is a prominent one. Utahns in general supported the war, but were under-represented in the military fighting that war.

At no time has President Gordon B. Hinckley suggested that Mormon men forgo missions to enlist in the fighting against the “war on terror.” Sacrifice means a heck of a lot more to me than words. All we have from the Mormon CEO is words. Atleast, that is my take. I’m still waiting for Mitt to enlist one of his strapping sons in the noble fight against “islamofascism”. I won’t hold my breath.

Monroe’s assertion was one of defense, not offense.

It doesn’t matter if he called it defense or offense (for example, today we call our military the Department of Defense, when it is in no way a defensive institution!), it is interferring in the internal affairs of other nations.

It was a warning against the European empires seeking to meddle in the affairs of other nations near our borders, instead of a declaration that we were going to invade ourselves

But you contradict yourself in the very next part:

Its meaning, as I understand it, was one of “stay out of our business, and we’ll stay out of yours”.

Who are we to say that Latin America is “our business?” What right do we have to claim that Latin America is our backyard? What utter arrogance!

I’m not selling a man

Yes you are. It would do you good to just be clear about it. You are trying to convert your readers to vote for Ron Paul. Please do not deny it.

I do believe that you are referring to the Roosevelt Corollary which warped its intended meaning and cited it as reason to intervene…

The State Department’s website explains:

Monroe and his Secretary of State John Quincy Adams drew upon a foundation of American diplomatic ideals such as disentanglement from European affairs and defense of neutral rights as expressed in Washington’s Farewell Address and Madison’s stated rationale for waging the War of 1812. The three main concepts of the doctrine–separate spheres of influence for the Americas and Europe, non-colonization, and non-intervention–were designed to signify a clear break between the New World and the autocratic realm of Europe. Monroe’s administration forewarned the imperial European powers against interfering in the affairs of the newly independent Latin American states or potential United States territories.

I’m sorry, but our current actions had their start with a Founding Father who preached American assertiveness and aggression through a Doctrine that European powers could not meddle in our “backyard.

Monroe’s assertion was one of defense, not offense. It was a warning against the European empires seeking to meddle in the affairs of other nations near our borders, instead of a declaration that we were going to invade ourselves.. Its meaning, as I understand it, was one of “stay out of our business, and we’ll stay out of yours”.

The State Dept. site goes on to explain:

As Monroe stated: “The American continents … are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.” Monroe outlined two separate spheres of influence: the Americas and Europe. The independent lands of the Western Hemisphere would be solely the United States’ domain. In exchange, the United States pledged to avoid involvement in the political affairs of Europe, such as the ongoing Greek struggle for independence from the Ottoman Empire, and not to interfere in the existing European colonies already in the Americas.

By the mid-1800s, Monroe’s declaration, combined with ideas of Manifest Destiny, provided precedent and support for U.S. expansion on the American continent. In the late 1800s, U.S. economic and military power enabled it to enforce the Monroe Doctrine. The doctrine’s greatest extension came with Theodore Roosevelt’s Corollary, which inverted the original meaning of the doctrine and came to justify unilateral U.S. broadened in Latin America. (emphasis added)

John Quincy Adams, one of the doctrine’s authors, was most certainly a believer in nonintervention.

You’re not actually trying to talk here about isolationism and non-interventionism, but rather, you’re selling a product whose name is Ron Paul.

False. If other statesman were speaking out boldly and wisely on this issue, I’d be quoting them as well. I’m not selling a man, I’m selling a principle—nonintervention.

Find me other honest and wise men, and I will uphold them.

Our traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference with other nations was based on the principle that this policy was the best way to avoid disputes with other nations and to maintain the liberty of this country without war. From the days of George Washington that has been the policy of the United States.

hmmm, perhaps Robert Taft wasn’t aware of the Monroe Doctrine…I do believe the whole entire premise and heart and soul of the Monroe Doctrine is interference in the business of other states. I’m sorry, but our current actions had their start with a Founding Father who preached American assertiveness and aggression through a Doctrine that European powers could not meddle in our “backyard.” Only we could meddle in the internal affairs of Latin America. This of course led to everything else that we see. Thanks Mr. Monroe!

I’m not surprised, Connor, that you don’t address the Monroe Doctrine in this piece. You’re not actually trying to talk here about isolationism and non-interventionism, but rather, you’re selling a product whose name is Ron Paul. You should retitle your piece to something like “Ron Paul is not for isolationism.” If you are going to look through some of the history of isolationism and non-interventionism then you must address the discrepancy of the Monroe Doctrine.