Are non-isolationist Republicans “rinos’

What is the Republican platform today?

That might help in defining a RINO.

Thank you for the explanation.

quote:

---

If you are a registered Republican and an "interventionist", you are a RINO.

---

The real issue is not whether intervention is ever justified but how high the bar should be. I think that bar has been too low for a long time, which has pulled us into conflicts we did not need to be in and could not really control. That does not mean intervention is never right. There are situations where a country is clearly expanding, conquering others, and becoming a threat that will be much harder to deal with later. In those cases, acting earlier, carefully, and with clear limits can make more sense than waiting until the costs are higher and the options are worse.

That is also why anything beyond very specific and limited actions, like targeting terrorist networks, should require a formal declaration of war. If we are committing the country to sustained military action, there should be a clear decision, defined objectives, and public accountability. Without that, intervention becomes too easy, too open ended, and disconnected from its real costs.

The historically conservative foreign policy was one of non-intervention. Republicans opposed the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations. Mr. Republican Robert Taft opposed NATO and the Nuremberg Trials. The interventionists in the party aren't RINO's, they're Trotskyists. They emanate from neoconservatism, which sprang out of NYC's Marxist circles in the 1930's and 1940's. Their idea of permanent war is simply just a reworking of Trotsky's concept of "permanent revolution", which of course is achieved through violence and force.

The main reason I have complaining about the administration's Venezuela actions is it really reeks of abusing the "terrorist" label to carry out geostrategic policy.

No, idiots don’t define anyone or anything