I never said isolationism, you are trying to put words in my mouth, a sure sign of the emptiness of your argument.  Trade with all, policeman for *NONE*  Get it??? that is not isolation.  If that is your definition then every country that doesn't play globo-cop is by default isolationist. 13th-18th century Korea is a textbook example of isolationism.  It was not uncommon for a foreigner to be executed for merely coming ashore.  



There is nothing about the advancement of technology that means we now have to delve into the affairs of other peoples.  Technology was improving all the time, even in GW's day.  That doesn't make his advice any less valid.  All you can say is we didn't have satellites and nukes back then, so what? You still have yet to come up with a rational explanation of why *WE HAVE* to provide meals on wheels to the damn planet, or get in between some domestic squabble thousands of miles away.  None of our business then, none now.



Considering how incredibly stupid you sound when you screw up your opening sentence this royally;

All of your retards belong to RikWriter.

I am going on 20 hrs w/o sleep Rik and I still have no trouble exposing you for the worldwide "American Empire" control freak that you are.  While I can't "prove" that you are a  hardcore marxist, not yet finished with your publik skool edumakation it sure is starting to sound that way. The way you get all moist talking about "superpowers not running things the way you like" is a give away.  Assaultweb had you dead to rights a long time ago.
Well enough for me, I am too tired to be typing.  If you want to get the last word in rik go ahead, then get a mod to lock it up.
rDAm

Invictus -- I had a feeling you would offer Switzerland as an example of what is perfect in the world. How typical.

Answer me this.

Should the US be actively involved in the fight against nuclear and biological weapons proliferation?

Should we cease to offer humanitarian aid to those nations in trouble?

Should we stay out of the affairs of those nations whose products we rely on, for instance, oil producing nations?

Should we offer preferred trading contracts to nations who have offered us support in the past?

Should we let the totalitarians of the world have their way with our fellow democratic states?

Should we stand idle while other nations form alliances that could threaten our position in the world, not to mention our security?

Should we open our borders and allow free immigration, providing no protections to our own workers?

You would have us bury our head in the sand and let nature take its course. We tried this after WWI and what did it get us? WWII.

As long as the rest of the world is playing by one set of rules, there is no way in hell we can prosper playing by our own set of rules. Get real.

Post from DonS -

Well we've had 34 years from that nefarious act against the USS Liberty by the Israel Air Force and Navy to 'disentangle' ourselves from the Jews.  So what happened?

Was it the Jewish press that spiked the story?
Was it Jewish millionaires who paid off the US Congresscritters?  Was it the Jewish lobbyists that twisted some arms in Washington DC?

Who was it that scuttled the investigation?

Why are we still allies?

Eric The(Inquisitive)Hun[>]:)]

Thank God for Nuclear Weapons!

Trade always brings politics. If people emmigrate they will have an interest in "the old country" for 3 generations minimum.

Hmmm, that sounds exactly like liberals when they talk about the 2nd Amendment- "The Founders didn't know that there would be machine guns, assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns, etc..."
The Founders and GW were wiser then you seem to give them credit for. Technology may change, but human behavior does not. They understood that. POLITICAL isolationism is the best way to stop these attacks. Trade, travel, etc are different stories though. We should be open in respects to that. But it is time we pulled back ALL of our military forces, and ended all foreign aid by the US govt' There are private orgs for that.

My apologies in advance for the length of this reply.



No country, even Switzerland is perfect.  The atypical part about this is they appear to be one of the countries that have it right.



Not at all.  What anyone else researches and develops is uniquely their business, and none of ours.  As long as they do not initiate its use against us, or anyone else they victimize no one.  Why should anyone, friends, family or neighbor give a rats ass if you own 50 "full-auto" machine guns?  "Why he could go nuts and shoot up the whole 'hood!" cries the pantywaste noisy neighbor.  Don't you see similarities in the irrational perception of threat?



At the taxpayers expense?  Hell no!  Charity is given voluntarily.  Money that is given away that was merely taken against ones will is wealth redistribution.  Whether it is to welfare mama's or another country, it is redistribution.  There are countless charitable organizations that do a far better job of getting aid to those that need it most, and they do it with far greater efficiency than meatheads that live off of taxpayers blood.



We should keep our noses out of the business of every other country, period.  If we "rely" on something we don't have control of, or don't have a right to control then I guess we better be careful or have enough ingenuity for a workable plan "B".  
If every OPEC nation decided to stop selling oil to the US, would we have the right to invade and take the oil?  Or do you think the market will find a supply for our demand?



Of course not, any trade should be equal.  Anything other than that is just animosity waiting to happen.  How does this sound, "we keep our tariffs at a flat rate for everyone, and everything".  Doesn't get any more equal than that.  You don't have a problem with equality do you?



You are really missing out on the big picture.  If every country were to follow the Swiss model they wouldn't have to worry about being invaded.  No one yet has explained why the Swiss in WW2, being [b]completely[/b] surrounded by the Axis powers (Germany, Austria, Italy, Vichy France) never were attacked?  Keep in mind that they were the world center in banking, a world leader in high precision industry, and had a HUGE reserve of gold.  Had Poland, France, or Russia been in the mold of Switzerland they would not have been defeated.
page 1

Your fear of "Boogey-Men" behind every border is a little bit disturbing, no offense but it is starting to sound a little paranoid.  What other countries do with each other is their business, the only way our security is threatened is if our borders are crossed with hostile intent or our ships are pirated upon the high seas.



No we should not have open borders, that is a mistake.  Limited immigration is fine, as long as the people who enter do so with the sole intent of assimilating.  Protecting workers?  I must have missed that one in the constitution somewhere.  It isn't a function of the *Federal Gub'mint*, the individual states are free to do as they will.  If you really want to get rid of unemployment and illegal foreign workers just get rid of the minimum wage laws.  I know this is a shockingly unpopular idea to those insecure in their own value as employees.  You wouldn't have nearly as many people breaking their necks to come here if that (unconstitutional) law were gone.



No you are quite wrong again.  Due to the education that Publik Skoolz don't provide, most without the desire to do a little research haven't a clue.  Since the 1930's the United States Govt had a policy of constant interference in normalized trade with Japan.  It started small at first but grew to the level of embargo until the desired response was encountered.  What was the lame excuse?  The Japanese were practicing "Empire" in China.  Of course a plethora of european countries were having their way with China, exploiting with abandon, but no, empire is only for the "Round Eye" not you Mr. Nippon!

Mr. Roosevelt had effectively declared war on Germany when he engineered the lend-lease of war material with Great Brittain.  Both of these are examples of interventionalism by the FDR administration, NOT isolationalism.  An Embargo against one nation but not others doing the same thing, and leasing warships to one warring side but not the other sounds like a sure recipe for a war.  Thank you for making this easy.



Actually I am quite real, let everyone play by their own rules, because what others do is [b]none of our business![/b]  If one country is protectionist, it will be ruinous in the long run.  If a country wants to restrict firearms to only those sworn to the state, fine, just don't expect us to rescue you from invasion due to your own idiocy.  If a nation wishes to play empire, sit back and watch it implode, like every empire does.

rDAm

the same thing that keeps every single U.S. citizen from becoming a Bill Gates.  the same thing that keeps them (other countries) from becoming superpowers today.  since you're invoking history, it might be wise to take a look back at the frequency of CONQUESTS.  it's always [i]somebody's[/i] dream to be the big dog on the porch.  someone will got the extra step to be that dog.  and that extra step ends up being a step towards superpower-dom because it's always got to be "just one more step."  think about.

just as within a single country, none of the citizens will be truly equal, throughout the world, none of the countries will be truly equal (or happy about it for that matter.  i haven't even brought into the mix the matter of religious differences, racial hatred, etc., et., etc.,)

And you are denying the implications of your own argument, a sure sign that you lack any sort of capacity for perspective or objectivity.



It's also not possible.  How do you trade if terrorists are bombing your factories and ships to get at the country with whom you are trading?
You clearly haven't thought this through very carefully.



No, that would you putting words in my mouth, a sure sign of the emptiness of your argument.



Sure there is.  How do you keep from "delving into the affairs of other peoples" when not doing so means that hackers in another country are free to sabotage your internet commerce?  How do you keep from getting involved when anyone in your country can see people being butchered by terrorists or rogue governments on live TV and start clammoring for action?  How do you keep from getting involved when the simply presence of your industry and restaurant chains in other countries causes insane terrorists to hate and resent your existence?
You have no concept of reality.



Ah, attacking typos now. Just one more sign that you have no rational argument.



That much is obvious.  I hope for your sake that your lack of coherence and rationality is due to lack of sleep rather than general idiocy.

Part Deux:

Invictus babbled:


American Empire?  Sure, as long as you mean that in the sense of the British Empire of the 18th Century.  I have no problem with America being the de facto ruling nation of this world, because I am more afraid of who ELSE would take our place...
Your marxist remark is just another example of your overall lack of sense and perspective.  Marxism is a historical philosophy that has to do with the class struggle...Marx would be 100% opposed to an American empire.
I learned little things like that by going to private religious schools from kindergarten all the way through my Bachelor's degree in History.
But don't let facts stand in your way...you haven't so far.



AH! You're an AssWeb regular...why is that not surprising?  
After reading the outright treason being espoused by some of your ilk over there, your illiterate screed comes into much clearer context.



You've been too tired to think clearly for some time now, apparently.



Naw, I am not like the Ass Webbers, I don't get the admin to shut people up simply because I disagree with them.  Maybe you should run back there, where the mods will keep things nice and safe so you don't have to listen to anyone who doesn't think just like you.

I believe there are certain nations -- as is evident in their behavior -- that have not business owning biological or nuclear weapons. It would be great if everyone could be trusted, but clearly this is not the case. Look at Saddam.

If humanitarian aid can clearly help an otherwise stable, democratic nation get back on its feet, I’m for it. And I don’t mind paying for it. Therefore, I choose to give out of my paycheck. But I also understand there are strategic issues as well, and therefore am not opposed to state sponsored aid, as long as the outcome is clearly positive in the minds of those who make the decisions.

I mostly agree with you on the issue of OPEC, as I believe the market would find another source should they decide to withhold production. However, if there are certain members we can influence in our favor, I am certainly for that as well. Isn’t that just good business?

Equality is a two-way street. I oppose flat-rate tariffs simply for the reason history has shown that it rarely works in our favor. How would you handle trade deficits? Should China have the right to export billions of dollars in goods to the US while we only export a few million dollars worth of goods to them? Where is the equality in that?

I believe the Swiss rely on their geographical position, surrounded by the Alps, as the main deterrent to invasion. They’re like an island, only on land. It was difficult to get tanks, artillery, or aircraft across the Alps in those days. With modern technology, it’s less of a problem (at least for aircraft). Come one, Poland has always been an easy target due to their location. They can follow any economic model they like, but lacking the necessary military or geographic advantage, the outcome was inevitable. France was payback for WWII, and of course, on the way to England.

No, every country does not follow the Swiss model. Your argument is again based on theory and does not take the real world into account. This is not SimCity here. You cannot start from scratch and build a New World to fit your desired model. You have to work with what you have.

A little paranoia is far better than naivete. Perhaps you should study the fall of Rome.

cont.

I believe open borders is one of the major platforms for the Libs. Are you saying that is not the case? Is it your belief that the vast majority of immigrants come here for the minimum wage? Tell you what, as soon as the industrial world does away with protections for their own workers, then perhaps we can too. Again, you are basing your argument on theory, not on reality.

Again, you seem to have a hard-on for “Publik Skoolz” education, as if you have some knowledge of my educational background and professional accomplishments. Read your history. The Lend-Lease Act was the result of increased aggression on the part of Germany. It did not result in their aggression. The US felt that the defense of the United Kingdom against aggression was vital to the defense of the US. This was a strategic decision and one in which I support. As far as isolationism, had the US played an active role in Europe following WWI (as we did after WWII) it is likely that there would have been no war at all. Instead, we stuck our heads in the sand and let France and England place dictates on Germany, which ultimately resulted in the collapse of the German economy and their embrace of Fascism. They were left no choice. Compare that to the end of WWII, where we took the lead role in the rebuilding of Europe, including Germany, which resulted in decades of peace and prosperity for all.

Again I apologize in advance for the length, and the numerous spelling/grammar errors.



Well I will let you in on a little secret  of  mine.  I would prefer that Mr. Saddam Hussein not even have a salad fork, let alone a weapon of any kind.  The fact remains that he does and in fact he has in the past had access to chem/bio weapons from guess who???  The United  States!  We (collectively, not ar15.com’rs) are responsible for a healthy chunk of his bio-chem arsenal.  That sucks.



Hey that is great, really.  I am all for you, me or anyone who feels strongly about something, to donate money or time to it.  That is great, that is the American way, volunteerism.  Now if you want everyone else to “donate” against their will, well that is piracy, not the American way.  Nations “helping” nations with tax money=Bad.  People helping people voluntarily=Good.  You and everyone else in this world are entitled to their opinions.  Everyone else in the world is NOT entitled to the fruit of my labor, nor am I entitled to theirs.



Well I am very happy to see us agree on ideas, that is indeed good news.  I think that the best business is simply business.  Undue influence on say high level officials in another country would be counter-productive.  If the local nationals thought that another country was “buying” (which could be construed in many ways) their politicians, they would probably have the ass at “US” and their home politicians.  This is not good for business.  Especially if you are throwing the money of the taxpayer around.


page 1...cont

page 2
First off tariffs were never originated to make things favorable to us in international trade.  Before the shitty 16th amendment  most of the Fed’s income to operate came from tariffs and imposts, as well as land sales to the public.  A much better way of financing the Feds than today’s means.  I admit on the surface it appears unfair, but if you look deeper you will see that no country will have absolute equality in trade with every other.  It is bordering on impossible to do, certainly an impractical task of a government plan that reeks of a “centrally planned, or command” economy.   I think of it this way, there are countries to that we export to more than we import, and they in turn trade with China, likely exporting more to them than importing, and so on.  It ends up being a lot more equal if you look at the big picture.



Well you are right that the Swiss use the alpine terrain to their advantage, any defense plan would be silly not to.  They still do, and it is indeed still a problem to wage war against a well-prepared population.  Poland would have not been “easy pickin’s” if they had followed the Swiss model.  The Germans were not at all invincible, they had been forced to go around well prepared and competently defended pockets of resistance in every offensive operation then embarked upon.  That is the problem, they were only few well prepared competent defenders, not a nation full of them.



Yes, every country can train all able-bodied males in an army/militia format if they wish.  They can do whatever it takes to ensure that the best weapons are “personally” available to its citizens under all circumstances.  They can choose not to involve themselves in subterfuge and intrigue in other countries.  There is no country that can’t do that.  It is simply up to the people to make it happen.



I prefer “consciences concern” over paranoia, I bet that is more like you as well.  I am fully aware of the fall of the Roman Empire.  Their end was just about inevitable when they ceased to be a republic.  A classic case of Empire, it all came to “Blowback” into their face.  One of the worst cases of implosion to be recorded.  They had their paws in everyone’s business.  It bit them in the ass.  I hope that doesn’t happen to us anymore.

cont....

page 3


Some libertarians are all for open borders, I am not.  The ones that do have a point, and it is this;  If we were to ditch all forms of welfare, min wage, and all sorts of socialist, bloated, unconstitutional government, there would be very few to come over here without some “safety net” funded by us taxpayers.  Those that enter that safety net seem to have a hell of a time getting out, don’t you agree?  In the mean time without the restrictive unconstitutional yoke of oppressive federal regulation around our necks we would be the leanest meanest productive machine in the world.  No one would be able to compete for long, they would have to adapt or suffer.

page 4

Well I guess I should have asked if you were a schoolteacher first shouldn’t I?  You are correct I have absolutely no idea what your level of education and accomplishment is.  Just as you don’t know me from Adam either, we are all keyboard monkey jack-asses until we meet face to face.  I certainly don’t think you are unintelligent, otherwise you wouldn’t have an interest in AR’s [:)].  Now I differ from you on the lend lease act.  It was an underhanded attempt by FDR to throw his backing firmly behind one side of this European war that we had absolutely no business in.  I’ll bet you a dozen donuts that if the same exact food, medicine,  and war material were offered to Germany for the same price they wouldn’t have the ass at us.  I’ll bet if we imposed the same exact sanctions on every country exploiting China the Japanese would not be so pissed either.  I must not be making sense about not getting in others business.  Yes we were not the ones getting all in Germany’s shit, it was the other allies that imposed such nonsense that the Germans could never recover from until they said “screw it, and screw you”.  That is precisely why it is the English, French and others fault, they just  had to try to humiliate and entire people, and it turned around and bit them in the ass. (notice the recurring thread throughout history).   I think the difference in WWII is that the “punishments” against the Germans were less severe in the long run than in WWI.  Keeping nationwide resentment down to a modest level is a good idea to me.  I will admit to you that if it were only up to the English and French again the post war outcome would have been different.  I apologize if I insulted you with the public school crack.  If you indeed are a public school teacher I find it believable that you are doing the finest job possible.
rDAm

edited for smiley content.

Yep, I knew it...Invictus also opposed our involvement in WW2.  Why is that not surprising?