Hey

Your screen name is awesome

for 1995.

Furthermore

Thats a pretty fucking stupid question to ask.

So either you're pretty fucking stupid, or you made a lame attempt at a burn through a text equivalent of rolling your eyes.

12/31/2007 12:57:43 PM

Quote :

"SandSanta: Hey look Isolationism You'd think after two world wars we'd stop talking about it. BUT THATS NOT THE REASON THOSE WARS STARTED right right. Just about how we should return to the gold standard as well, eh?"

World War I, started by isolationism? Hey, look, I know you're trying to pretend to know jack about history, but you get an F. Minus.

12/31/2007 1:06:34 PM

Reading comprehension buddy

I didn't mention anything about 'started.'

12/31/2007 1:15:22 PM

You're right. You make the equal error of acting like a World War whose sole premise was entangling alliances and meddling in the affairs of other nations is somehow a case against the relevance of non-intervention.

F-.

12/31/2007 1:17:42 PM

Actually

A logical person would make the case that American involvement in european politics earlier then 1917 might have possibly brokered a peace or at the least tipped the balance of war in such a way as to not lead directly to a deadlock rather then waiting and joining later on anyway but far be it for me to assume you're remotely logical.

12/31/2007 1:20:35 PM

Or, a non-insane person might have posited that the pointless war of attrition was nearing stalemate by the time of America's entry and thus would have largely left a status quo wherein no side was left a dominant power, therefore not leading to the lopsided outcome of the Treaty of Versailles where bitter retribution was exacted, thereby sowing the seeds for the rise of an authoritarian regime in Germany.

But hey, I mean, America involving itself in wars which have nothing to do with American security have such an awesome track record. How could we resist?

12/31/2007 1:25:36 PM

Continuing with the What If game, one might think that had our Congress not torpedoed our own President's plans for lasting peace, and withdrawn the US back into a shell, then Europe wouldn't be left to a weak and tired France and England who tried appeasement as a means of containment for an ambitious German Chancellor by the name of Adolf Hitler.

This consequently led to a surprise invasion of the Soviet Union which had pretty intense psychological impact on Joseph Stalin and threw half of eastern Europe to the grips of communism.

I wonder what would have happened had we reverted to isolationism during the cold war. Clearly, its a sound foreign policy.

12/31/2007 1:31:23 PM

So remind me, then - what was America's compelling interest for being involved in WWI, other than Wilson's personal ambition? Nothing? But... that's a great reason to wage war, right? I mean, the best reason of all! Wars made for actual purposes of defending America - how boring! Nothing shows off what a manly country we are more than shoveling blood and treasure into the roaring fires of war. Especially when it has absolutely nothing to do with our security.

But let's get back to the Wild Assumptions game, since this seems to be what you're basing your entire political philosophy off of. So, let's assume now that Congress, easily skeptical of the notion of yet another series of entangling alliances with a demonstrably unstable European continent, decides to accede to Wilson' will. We somehow are now left to make the fantastic assumption that the same nations that in the real world themselves imposed the punitive Treaty of Versailles would have actually accepted the terms of Wilson's compromise and not demanded their own harsh retribution. I mean, nations that did do that thing would totally jump at the chance to amicably rhat about all thesolve their differences with a nation that waged aggressive war against them. There's totally reason to believe that everything would have been sunshine and puppies and love in Europe if only not for that nasty old Congress derailing Wilson's One Great Plan.

And hey, how about all those other wars with no relevance to American security we got involved with. I mean, Vietnam - what a smashing success for American power and influence! And at zero cost to America in terms of lives, money, or internal domestic strife. No lasting consequences at all. And, look at Bay of Pigs! Magnificent job there, boys. And hey - just look at what a fantastic success the Middle East is, thanks to our own Cold War policy there - absolutely nothing is wrong thanks to America's short-sighted interventions there.

Wow, I'm glad we live in a world of constant intervention: America is totally safe because of it. We don't have to worry about the negative effects of any of our policies or anything, because We're America, gosh darnit: actions have no consequences here.

12/31/2007 1:44:21 PM

your post is so willfully simplistic it's silly to even bother.

12/31/2007 1:47:24 PM

And so, I am left to believe that despite how "willfully simplistic" it is, you can't. Oh, you can say you're just too lazy to do so, but frankly, given the lack of evidence otherwise, one is left to believe you just simply can't.

Or you could prove me wrong, instead of just pretending that you can.

12/31/2007 1:55:15 PM

let's start with the first sentence

Quote :

"So remind me, then - what was America's compelling interest for being involved in WWI, other than Wilson's personal ambition?"

let's see: the sinking of the lusitania, submarine warfare in our waters, germany negotiating with mexico for the reclaiming of much of SW US. and let's not forget that the congress declared war. so don't pretend like it was just that wilson wanted to be tough.

[Edited on December 31, 2007 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2007 2:59:33 PM

The Lusitania - remind me, that was the one where we were shipping arms on civilian boats in direct violation of our declared neutrality - right?

Thanks for your A-game rebuttal there, chump.

12/31/2007 3:04:01 PM

whatever. your claim that it was just wilson trying to be tuff is pretty simplistic and wrong.

12/31/2007 3:11:13 PM

Quote :

"Thanks for your A-game rebuttal there, chump."

12/31/2007 3:14:46 PM

whether those reasons are good enough or not is a different question. but we didn't just go to war because wilson had a personal ambition to do so.

12/31/2007 3:21:00 PM

That's what it essentially boiled down to though. Much in the same way Bush sent us into Iraq, to establish his legacy. Once you make a decision to do something, it's pretty damn easy to rationalize it with dozens of insignificant reasons.

Non-interventionism is NOT isolationism. There's a HUGE and marked difference between the two. The former is the idea that bringing positive change and spreading democracy and liberty is best done through commerce (which works). As opposed to our imperialism (our current foreign policy) which aims to do the same thing (but doesnt work, at all).

Other than WWII, we haven't been in a single WAR that was warranted. And as DrChaosFace pointed out, even WWII would likely not have happened if we hadn't stuck our necks out in the name of good intentions.

There have been a handful of conflicts we had a positive impression on (Serbia comes to mind), but they have been vastly outweighed by outright disasters (anyone remember Somalia? Yea boy we did a lot there, or how about Afghanistan or Iran in the 70's and 80's?)

12/31/2007 3:44:35 PM

Quote :

"And yet, plenty of non-Republicans seem to love the guy. Hell, maybe he's doing something right..."

yea, prolly because he actually does this crazy thing... You know, following the fucking Constitution

12/31/2007 6:39:32 PM

Aye look at the flamefest... let's get back to the original post:

Quote :

"Hey look Isolationism You'd think after two world wars we'd stop talking about it. BUT THATS NOT THE REASON THOSE WARS STARTED right right."

World War I was started b/c of two series of entangling alliances - one that formed the Triple Alliance and the other that formed the Triple Entente - that ended up at war with one another. The war was not a result of human rights violations, injustices, or a power grab. It was a result of one particular douchebag named Gavrilo Princip that felt the need to murder the Austro-Hungarian's king and queen.

Now, this war was between foreign nations that did not at all concern the US. There was no overriding reason to come in on either side. Therefore the US sat still, that is until the Lusitania sunk and the British informed us that Germany wanted to coax Mexico into joining their cause. THAT was a direct threat to national security. If you want to embrace the position that the Lusitania was carrying weapons, or that the Germany-Mexico message was phony, that's fine. On the surface however the US was provoked, Congress declared war, so we went off to kick some ass (and we did).

Now, World War II on the other hand, as stated by DrSteveChaos, was a result of the vindicative Treaty of Versailles. Germany took the blame for the war, took out enormous loans to finance its reconstruction, and went into a depression. Shockingly enough, they came back two short decades later and pounded the European mainland something fierce. Hitler's rise to power was a direct result of the Treaty of Versailles and gross negligence on the part of the rest of Europe. Once again, a direct threat to our national security led Congress to declare war after the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor.

Now, you can make the argument that the spread of Nazism could have enveloped the world and left America without any allies to fight it. I might even be swayed by this argument. At some point you have to consider that the blatant oppression of so many countries, including things like the gestapo and concentration camps, might very well be worthwhile causes enough to justify a declaration of war.

However, islamic terrorism represents an ENTIRELY different threat than did Third Reich. For one, the terrorists do not control a specific country or government. They don't even hold a political majority in any Middle Eastern Country. They have no standing army, navy, or air force. They are extremists, extremists that are hated by their own people and denounced by their own governments. The idea that the US can fight Islamic terrorists the same way it fought against Nazis is utterly absurd and ignorant.

Instead, I think the US needs to capitalize on a not-so obvious truth - The silent majority in the Middle East doesn't particularly care for the extremists. Problem is... they lack a better message to challenge it. The sad reality is that muslims fear the extremists enough to keep their mouths shut when it's time to start with the anti-US chants. The US is an easy scapegoat. The US is rich, powerful, and making far better use of Middle Eastern oil than the people that live there. Then there's the influx of foreign workers, technologies, and social norms (like, say, women in the workplace). The Middle East is poor, politically corrupt, and economically miserable. They are frustrated, and some have turned to the mosque as an outlet to vent that frustration. Some take that frustration to a higher and more dangerous level.

The US must engage in a new war - a war of ideas. The US has good ideas, ideas that work. The US can be an example to the world of what can be accomplished through freedom, peace, understanding, tolerance, and mutual respect. But we cannot must not impose our will via the barrel of a gun. Instead, let's step forward honestly and humbly to offer our help. How go about this is of the utmost importance, b/c America will not get the benefit of the doubt from this particular crowd. The extremists will always find ways to misconstrue our intentions. But if we remain patient, if we find a way to give a voice to the silent majority, that majority just might find the courage to fight back against those that have hijacked their religion, their political power, and their integrity. The truth is, the US cannot save the Muslim people from themselves.

But by all means, let's keep banging our heads into the wall in Iraq. Let's keep intervening in Iraq b/c, of course, we know what's best. Let's ignore the fact that 15/19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and that they attacked us primarily b/c we had 14 bases in their country. Let's ignore the fact that our troops in Iraq present both a stationary target and a recruiting lever for our real enemy - Al Qaida. Let's also ignore the fact that the US left Afghanistan in ruins after helping them defeat the Soviets, which gave rise to the Taliban regime and some dude named Bin Laden. The US has spent the past 50+ years doing things the wrong way in the Middle East. It's time we looked at the data and realized it's time to change our ways...

...


Right... so... Iraq is not an example of why non-interventionalism fails.


[/rant]

[Edited on December 31, 2007 at 6:47 PM. Reason : Might have gotten a little off topic there ]

12/31/2007 6:40:39 PM

no, really, it makes sense to go out and arm every group over there in that region, though. I mean, hell, it worked with Osama, right? It worked with iraq, right? It worked with Iran, right?

btw, I think I made my mom into a Ron Paul supporter the other night.

[Edited on December 31, 2007 at 6:44 PM. Reason : ]

12/31/2007 6:43:41 PM

^ Now we're agreeing on political candidates? I find this profoundly disturbing dude

12/31/2007 6:50:18 PM

bout time you came around

12/31/2007 6:56:47 PM

The problem with what you said, Noen, is how you can claim to be a non interventionist and not be isolationist. For the global super power to ignore civil matters internationally because "its not our business" is dangerous ad here is clear precedent on exactly how dangerous- no matter how hard some of you try to reason otherwise.

12/31/2007 7:40:40 PM

I can't type a drawn out reply on an iPhone but I would argue active American involvement prior to both war would have changed the course ad nature of both. ESPECIALLY WWII.

12/31/2007 7:48:07 PM

An isolationist would say "I won't get involved anywhere, no matter what." A non-interventionist would say "hey, how bout we not go around doing things that will piss people off and then maybe people will stop being pissed off at us..." Ron Paul is the latter.

12/31/2007 11:36:38 PM

^exactly. We are talking about pre-emptive strikes, occupying forces and cultural strongarming here.

Non-interventionism means we keep the hell out of civil conflicts. We do nothing but stir the pot by getting invoved, getting more people killed and bringing out more zealots who use the US as a symbolic target.

Sandsanta, all of your arguments are simply mitigating the core problem. If we didn't get in other country's business, we wouldn't have to worry about the rest of the crap.

1/1/2008 4:44:55 PM

You can't have a dichotomy for nonintervention so that it means intervene on good causes and don't on bad ones. You're either actively meddling in global affairs or you aren't. There's no such thing as 'shades of intervention' and actively not intervening is an isolationist agenda.

1/2/2008 12:55:56 AM

^You're exactly right! We must all deny the existence of the color gray, thank you glorious prophet for finally showing us the light! It is utterly impossible for people to look at a particular political situation and decide based on that particular instance what course of action would be best. Such a thing is inconceivable!

1/2/2008 1:33:38 AM

There's no gray area with intervention...you can't intervene in some cases and not others.

Because you know, thats what we've been doing for the last sixty years.

1/2/2008 1:43:19 AM

so anybody see how fox news is already banning ron paul from the next debate? no bias there!

1/2/2008 2:28:07 AM

^^the rules are pretty simple. if a country declares war on us, or attacks, or directly threatens to attack the US, we retaliate. Otherwise, we let them sort the shit out.

The "gray" area would be if a country becomes militarily expansionist, aka they begin to try and swallow other soverign nations (akin to Germany in WWII, or Serbia after the separation of Yugoslavia). However even then, history has shown us that getting involved doesnt do a damn thing in the end (Korea, Vietnam, et al)

1/2/2008 2:59:57 AM

Which actually is technically an isolationist policy...as I was saying before.

1/2/2008 11:39:38 AM

I see my rant was wasted on this thread. Pity. Anyhoo...

Quote :

"You can't have a dichotomy for nonintervention so that it means intervene on good causes and don't on bad ones. You're either actively meddling in global affairs or you aren't. There's no such thing as 'shades of intervention' and actively not intervening is an isolationist agenda."

The US must discern where it should stick it's nose. When it comes to issues of morality and human rights, the source of aid provided can be very critical. The problem with constantly spending money in the Middle is the perception that the US is looking out for one thing - it's own interests. There is a strong anti-US bias in this region, and the extremists will seize upon any opportunity to "blame America" for everything from the economy to perceived moral degredation.

I hate to make a Star Trek reference, but seriously, think of the Prime Directive. Don't mess with other cultures or take sides in their struggles. There is always a huge potential for unintended consequences. It's far too easy to have your actions, however honorable or well-intended, to backfire in a huge way. The US answered a call for help from Saudi Arabia when Iraq invaded Kuwait. That was about as honorable and well-intended an action as it gets. And what did we get for our trouble? Fifteen of their citizens participating in 9/11.

The US spends hundreds of millions of dollars to multiple Middle Eastern Countries on foreign aid alone. It's been doing this for decades now. Has the situation over there gotten any better? Has public opinion for the US improved at all? I'd say the evidence suggests we're wasting far too much time and money to continue spending ourselves into another recession. If they don't like us and don't want our help, then I say we pull out and go home.

1/2/2008 12:56:10 PM

Hmmm

You just tried to use a Star Trek reference to make a point.

I see.

1/2/2008 1:26:56 PM

Hmmm

You just tried to be funny instead of making a relevant response.

I see.

1/2/2008 5:53:24 PM

I'll enjoy seeing Dr. Paul at the FNC debate

Oh wait

lol

1/2/2008 7:07:15 PM

I wonder what Fox's rationale is behind not allowing Paul at the debate. I mean, what is their "public rationale." It's clear that they don't want Paul to win, but I wonder, when taking the Fairness Doctrine into account, how they can rationalize excluding a man from a debate who within the last month raised 6 million dollar bux in one day and in the month prior to that, raised more than 4 million dollar bux in a single day. Hell, with their slogan of "Fair and Balanced," how can they rationalize it?

1/2/2008 9:04:19 PM

who cares on election day they will get a big suprise

1/2/2008 9:31:46 PM

^ I sure hope so, but will they report it?

1/2/2008 9:42:24 PM

What was Ron's total for Q4? Did he get all the way to 20,000?

Also check out the huge aol straw poll (Mike and Ron are close in a lot of states): http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/21/straw-poll-dec-21-jan-4

1/2/2008 9:58:32 PM

You know, it's been more fun watching Ron Paul's effect on so-called conservatives than on liberals.

He's been like the Cocker Spaniel of Liberty, flushing out faux-conservatives from their big-gov't weeds. The Fox network might be the latest quail to show itself for what it truly is. People like Hannity and Rush attack Paul for conservative values that were the bedrock values of the Robert Taft era republicans... free trade, non-intervention, anti-war and low taxes.

1/2/2008 11:37:24 PM

Quote :

"The US answered a call for help from Saudi Arabia when Iraq invaded Kuwait. That was about as honorable and well-intended an action as it gets. And what did we get for our trouble? Fifteen of their citizens participating in 9/11. "

Huh?

the 9/11 terrorists were more related to the doings in afghanistan at the height of the Cold War than the Gulf War. The gulf war was likely the least of their influences, on the list of their influences.

And you're delusional if you think us helping Kuwait and anything to do with being good pals with the Saudis at the time, or because they asked us to help him. You probably could look up what actually happened on wikipedia or something, but it all boils down to $$$, not because we were actually trying to help some people out at the time in violation of the Prime Directive.

1/3/2008 1:58:23 AM

Erios dude

Your post had no information that I haven't already covered.

Except the prime directive.

From Star Trek.





















Star Trek












(a canceled science fiction television show)


















(that had a series featuring Scott Bakula)

[Edited on January 3, 2008 at 2:05 AM. Reason : >.<]

1/3/2008 2:05:07 AM

Dude. What do you have against Scott Bakula? Quantum Leap? Enterprise? Both quality shows.

Seriously, man. Something's wrong with you if you have no love for Mr. Bakula.

1/3/2008 3:23:55 AM

Kinda like in modern day news regarding Iraq

Quote :

"let's see: the sinking Crashing of the lusitania crashing of the 9/11 planes, submarine warfare in our waters nuclear weapons and yellow cake oh my!!t, germany Saddam in Iraq negotiating with mexico Osama to attack the USA for the reclaiming of much of SW US the Middle East from Freedom!. let's not forget that the congress GWB declared [b]started the war based in very false intelligence claims. so don't pretend like it was just that wilson wanted to be tough."

We really had no business in WW1. Germany was not really in the wrong in this conflict. then after it was over they were bent over and given it in the ass.

1/3/2008 3:31:08 AM

Quote :

"There's no such thing as 'shades of intervention' and actively not intervening is an isolationist agenda. "

first off, how does one actively not intervene?

you really don't have a grasp on the definitions of these words do you? Isolationism goes far beyond getting involved in other countries' conflicts. It is a doctorine of refraining from any sort of trade or agreements with any other countries.

Dr. Paul has stated many times that trade and other cooperation with foreign countries is a very good thing, but forcibly emposing our beliefs and government on them is not....they have the right to deal with their own issues just like we do....not to mention that history has shown that a philosophy of pre-emptive action, and the notion that "the enemy of our enemy is our friend" never works, and usually backfires in our face.

1/3/2008 9:48:22 AM

Big day today. Ultimately he won't drop out regardless of result just cause he has a ton of money, which more often than not determines whether campaigns continue or not.

But as far as results, I'll be happy if he beats Thompson and Giuliani and that's what to aim for. Here is what First Read said on expectations for the Republicans regarding Paul (and Giuliani).

Quote :

"Spending as little as he has, a Huckabee win will be seen as a tremendous upset. But for Iowa to catapult him into New Hampshire and beyond, the win needs to be big. A loss and Huckabee is like George Mason in the NCAA tournament a few years back -- a great story until they lose, and once they do, everyone forgets about them. For Romney, Huckabee actually gave him a gift: He made Iowa relevant again on the GOP side. A Romney win will mean something. But he can’t afford to go 0-2 in the first two contests. The campaign swears they can still win in Michigan if they lose the first two. But that seems like a stretch -- right now. In the race for third, McCain (or even a surprise Giuliani) finishing in that place would probably resonate the loudest. But woe unto any GOP front-runner finishing behind Paul. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22476967/

Quote :

"Rudy Giuliani The good news for Hizzoner is that he only has to defeat one candidate. The bad news? He may not do it. Giuliani's camp is blowing off Iowa, I get that, but can he really afford to finish behind Ron Paul? Remember, Paul was the first candidate to get into a verbal exchange with Giuliani at an early debate, when Rudy was riding high and Paul was considered the GOP's mascot candidate. So finishing behind him would bring Giuliani negative symbolism that the national press could use to pummel Giuliani for his late-state strategy. "

1/3/2008 10:30:08 AM

Quote :

" you really don't have a grasp on the definitions of these words do you? Isolationism goes far beyond getting involved in other countries' conflicts. It is a doctorine of refraining from any sort of trade or agreements with any other countries. "

Redefining policy to suite your terms?

GTFO.

1/3/2008 11:53:20 AM

Quote :

"Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following: Non-interventionism - Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. Protectionism - There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states. Isolationism is not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries. This "libertarian isolationist" view is best defined as a policy of nonparticipation in foreign political relations, but free trade and affability to all."

^you sir, are an idiot. Not necessarily for having an incorrect understanding of this, but for repeatedly failing to realize you are the one who is:

Quote :

"Redefining policy to suite your terms"

after you have been corrected numerous times.

1/3/2008 12:08:16 PM

Quote :

"Your post had no information that I haven't already covered."

I disagree. You've ignored my posts completely. On top of that you dissed Scott Bakula. Not cool man, not cool

1/3/2008 12:08:49 PM

I hated quantum leap.


And enterprise sucked.


THERE I SAID IT.

1/3/2008 12:12:46 PM