I am just going to go ahead and call out all the usual Reich-wing Republican suspects who do not support Ron Paul for president as the real Isolationists – on the following grounds:
You want to build bigger fences to keep people out.
You do not want trade with the entire world (and simultaneously confuse the government’s of other nations for the people they oppress).
You believe the US should have the world’s only military super-power and will stop at nothing to keep other nations from defending themselves against its might.
You may have gotten some responses if you hadn’t gone at this so confrontationally. I want to build bigger fences AND get a bit more trigger happy, to keep SOME people out. I am not for international economicanarchy. No. I believe IF we would actually pursue being the world’s only superpower, by a lot, nobody (almost) would have to worry about defending themselves against our might. Right now we’re just strong enough to take anybody on, but not strong enough to keep them from tryin.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You may have gotten some responses if you hadn’t gone at this so confrontationally. [/quote]
The reason I didn’t respond is because it’s so silly. Firstly, the whole argument over whether someone is an ‘isolationist’ or not would all depend on what you mean by an ‘isolationist.’
However the real silliness is point number .3) - Arguing that imposing U.S. designs on the rest of the world via military aggression is what makes Republicans isolationists? I mean what can you say to something like that?
However the real silliness is point number .3) - Arguing that imposing U.S. designs on the rest of the world via military aggression is what makes Republicans isolationists? I mean what can you say to something like that?[/quote]
Yep. The US is isolationist because it is an aggressive interventionist in the world.
However the real silliness is point number .3) - Arguing that imposing U.S. designs on the rest of the world via military aggression is what makes Republicans isolationists? I mean what can you say to something like that?[/quote]
Yep. The US is isolationist because it is an aggressive interventionist in the world.
However the real silliness is point number .3) - Arguing that imposing U.S. designs on the rest of the world via military aggression is what makes Republicans isolationists? I mean what can you say to something like that?[/quote]
Yep. The US is isolationist because it is an aggressive interventionist in the world.
Dumb as a fencepost.
[/quote]
To be fair I think his point is that he perceives that behaviour isolates the U.S. in terms of relations with other nations which goes back to my point about defining the goalposts first.
To be fair I think his point is that he perceives that behaviour isolates the U.S. in terms of relations with other nations which goes back to my point about defining the goalposts first.[/quote]
Perhaps so, and I can appreciate your willingness to extend Lifticus the benefit of the doubt on clumsy wording. Not sure I do.
Oh Lifty’s alright. I think I said a while back that I have come to believe his intentions are more noble than I once did. He’s just wrong, that’s all.
I don’t really care about getting responses. I figured it would eventually get read by the people I wanted to read it.
Isolationism is hurtful because people are denied the right to trade or travel. Isolation need not be an intentional policy; it can happen as a result of our own aggressive behavior wherein other people will not want to associate with us. This is no less true for a government as it is for an individual.
However the real silliness is point number .3) - Arguing that imposing U.S. designs on the rest of the world via military aggression is what makes Republicans isolationists? I mean what can you say to something like that?[/quote]
Yep. The US is isolationist because it is an aggressive interventionist in the world.
Isolation need not be an intentional policy; it can happen as a result of our own aggressive behavior wherein other people will not want to associate with us. [/quote]
Please provide a list of nations that do not want to associate with us as a result of our own aggressive behavior, and let’s discuss. Thanks in advance.
Isolation need not be an intentional policy; it can happen as a result of our own aggressive behavior wherein other people will not want to associate with us. [/quote]
Please provide a list of nations that do not want to associate with us as a result of our own aggressive behavior, and let’s discuss. Thanks in advance.[/quote]
They may want to but what if US government trade and customs policy makes it too difficult and not worth their effort?
They may want to but what if US government trade and customs policy makes it too difficult and not worth their effort? [/quote]
Nope, and don’t try wriggle out and change the subject.
You said the US’ aggressive interventionism has the effect of making other countries not want to associate with the US. Okay, so which ones?
If the US enacts a trade and customs policy restricting trade and travel with a country, that is an example of the US choosing not to associate with a nation, not the other way around.
So, which nations are choosing not to associate with the US as a result of our aggressive interventionist policies?
Well, the US has been a big meanie interventionist for more than a century, especially in the last ten years. So, surely the wages of this interventionism are that some countries are refusing to associate with the US.
Which countries? Or are you here to tell me that the US has been engaging in this behavior for more than a century and it hasn’t happened yet?
Well, the US has been a big meanie interventionist for more than a century, especially in the last ten years. So, surely the wages of this interventionism are that some countries are refusing to associate with the US.
Which countries? Or are you here to tell me that the US has been engaging in this behavior for more than a century and it hasn’t happened yet?
[/quote]
You’re missing the point TB, it COULD happen so we should like totally change our policy and stuff to preemptively stop people from stopping trading with us should we not continue on with our policy that hasn’t yet created this effect. Geez it’s perfectly clear, lay off the weed man.