[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Isolationism (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 12/16/2015 11:23:32 AM EDT
|
Isolationaism:
noun: isolationism a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries. Can it work? defend only our borders, and citizens wherever they be. |
|
No, not for a Nation our size with our current population and expected standard of living.
Our economy is heavily tied now to global commerce as one of the world's leading exporters and importers of goods and services. We are so heavily dependent on global commerce that even economic impacts on nations other than our own that disrupt that global trade (even if it isn't trade directly to our nation) can impact our economic security. Think about the money that the US borrows every year from foreign nations to fund its public expenditures. Think about the foreign investment private companies receive each year from overseas. |
|
I don't know. I don't like getting involved in something that isn't any of our business. We shouldn't be involved in attempting to depose a government just because we don't like them or what they are doing. Let each country figure out its own path. It's not our business until they make it our business. If one of our allies gets attacked by a country that we are either not or less strongly allied with then we step in. I think we let Germany get too far in WWII before we got involved so that's an extreme I'm not willing to go to, but I also don't think we should be involved in attempting to depose a ruler/government in some country like Syria whose people and culture we have about as much in common with as a cat does to a fish.
I think that our stance should be that we don't care what they do, but if they mess with us or an ally they get the "crippled infrastructure, assassinated leaders, bombed back to the stone age" award. Then we leave and let someone else pick up the pieces. Building schools and starting new governments should not be anywhere on our list of things to do. |
|
Quoted:
No, not for a Nation our size with our current population and expected standard of living. Our economy is heavily tied now to global commerce as one of the world's leading exporters and importers of goods and services. We are so heavily dependent on global commerce that even economic impacts on nations other than our own that disrupt that global trade (even if it isn't trade directly to our nation) can impact our economic security. Think about the money that the US borrows every year from foreign nations to fund its public expenditures. Think about the foreign investment private companies receive each year from overseas. I think we should distinguish between political ties/influence and military action. Having ambassadors and having good relationships with strong economic countries is good for our economy. I do not think that we should have to pay for a higher return on our retirement portfolio with the lives of American soldiers. |
|
Quoted:
I think we should distinguish between political ties/influence and military action. Having ambassadors and having good relationships with strong economic countries is good for our economy. I do not think that we should have to pay for a higher return on our retirement portfolio with the lives of American soldiers. Quoted:
Quoted:
No, not for a Nation our size with our current population and expected standard of living. Our economy is heavily tied now to global commerce as one of the world's leading exporters and importers of goods and services. We are so heavily dependent on global commerce that even economic impacts on nations other than our own that disrupt that global trade (even if it isn't trade directly to our nation) can impact our economic security. Think about the money that the US borrows every year from foreign nations to fund its public expenditures. Think about the foreign investment private companies receive each year from overseas. I think we should distinguish between political ties/influence and military action. Having ambassadors and having good relationships with strong economic countries is good for our economy. I do not think that we should have to pay for a higher return on our retirement portfolio with the lives of American soldiers. Such as? I always here about how the US is so fucked for having it's current level of debt, but virtually every country in the world has a worse ratio of debt to GDP and assets. |
|
Quoted:
If it could work for any country it would be the US and maybe Canada. We have enough resources to supply the this country several times over. Good look implementing it though... No. There are several critical materials we simply don't have. Chromium comes to mind. And single malt scotch, Italian shotguns, virtually anything electronic, and cheap surplus ammo. |
|
Quoted:
We should trade with other countries, but we really should not get involved all over the world as the cop. In today's global climate, you aren't going to have one without the other. Like it or not, we're the only grown-up left in the room. We can either cut the kids loose, or keep them burning the house down. |
|
Quoted:
No. There are several critical materials we simply don't have. Chromium comes to mind. And single malt scotch, Italian shotguns, virtually anything electronic, and cheap surplus ammo. Quoted:
Quoted:
If it could work for any country it would be the US and maybe Canada. We have enough resources to supply the this country several times over. Good look implementing it though... No. There are several critical materials we simply don't have. Chromium comes to mind. And single malt scotch, Italian shotguns, virtually anything electronic, and cheap surplus ammo. Titanium, perhaps? Niobium? etc etc. |
|
Quoted:
I forgot that "promote the general welfare" isn't in the preamble of the Constitution. Quoted:
Quoted:
If we had a sea change in national attitude about the role of government and letting poor people starve to death it might work for a while. I forgot that "promote the general welfare" isn't in the preamble of the Constitution. Oh, don't get me wrong... I got no problem with a sea change in national attitude about the role of government and letting poor people starve to death... it's long overdue. Not an isolationism fan though. It's a short-term fix at best. |
|
Quoted:
And, now, to China... 
TC Quoted:
Quoted:
No. Global civilization depends on reliable, safe sea lines of communication. Great Britain did that up until WWII, then the mantle fell to the US. And, now, to China...
TC They've gotten so good at it, they MAY have actually gotten a handful of troops to Syria (in the Med), something we only mastered in, oh, you know, the 1700s... 
|
|
Quoted:
Oh, don't get me wrong... I got no problem with a sea change in national attitude about the role of government and letting poor people starve to death... it's long overdue. Not an isolationism fan though. It's a short-term fix at best. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If we had a sea change in national attitude about the role of government and letting poor people starve to death it might work for a while. I forgot that "promote the general welfare" isn't in the preamble of the Constitution. Oh, don't get me wrong... I got no problem with a sea change in national attitude about the role of government and letting poor people starve to death... it's long overdue. Not an isolationism fan though. It's a short-term fix at best. Perhaps you misunderstood my post. The government and the citizens both have a vested interest in the general welfare. The exact implementation is the question, not if the promotion of the general welfare is constitutional or not. 
|
|
Quoted:
Such as? I always here about how the US is so fucked for having it's current level of debt, but virtually every country in the world has a worse ratio of debt to GDP and assets. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, not for a Nation our size with our current population and expected standard of living. Our economy is heavily tied now to global commerce as one of the world's leading exporters and importers of goods and services. We are so heavily dependent on global commerce that even economic impacts on nations other than our own that disrupt that global trade (even if it isn't trade directly to our nation) can impact our economic security. Think about the money that the US borrows every year from foreign nations to fund its public expenditures. Think about the foreign investment private companies receive each year from overseas. I think we should distinguish between political ties/influence and military action. Having ambassadors and having good relationships with strong economic countries is good for our economy. I do not think that we should have to pay for a higher return on our retirement portfolio with the lives of American soldiers. Such as? I always here about how the US is so fucked for having it's current level of debt, but virtually every country in the world has a worse ratio of debt to GDP and assets. Such as what? Countries with strong economies? There is a large list to choose from. There are plenty of countries that we trade with and those relationships should be fostered to the extent that they improve our own economic interests. My point is that there are different facets to the "isolationism" issue. Most will read it as "military intervention" etc. as I did. Edit: perhaps I am mixing definitions. OP's definition explicitly stated political affairs. I don't care whether or not we are putting political pressure upon other governments to better serve our own interests, but I don't think we need to be involved in trying to topple a non-friendly government or implementing military action because they don't want to buy more of our goods, government bonds, house our ambassadors, kiss our Presidents ass, or whatever. |
|
Quoted:
They've gotten so good at it, they MAY have actually gotten a handful of troops to Syria (in the Med), something we only mastered in, oh, you know, the 1700s... Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. Global civilization depends on reliable, safe sea lines of communication. Great Britain did that up until WWII, then the mantle fell to the US. And, now, to China...
TC They've gotten so good at it, they MAY have actually gotten a handful of troops to Syria (in the Med), something we only mastered in, oh, you know, the 1700s... The Chinese culture has been around at least a few thousand years than nearly any other, and has had practically zero influence outside of Eastern Asia.... |
|
Quoted:
If it could work for any country it would be the US and maybe Canada. We have enough resources to supply the this country several times over. Good look implementing it though... Not true. 60% of what we produce is exported. That means jobs disappear when our allies disappear. |
|
Quoted:
Not true. 60% of what we produce is exported. That means jobs disappear when our allies disappear. Quoted:
Quoted:
If it could work for any country it would be the US and maybe Canada. We have enough resources to supply the this country several times over. Good look implementing it though... Not true. 60% of what we produce is exported. That means jobs disappear when our allies disappear. But we don't produce or export anything in the US anymore.... just ask Arfcom.
|
|
Quoted:
I think we should distinguish between political ties/influence and military action. Having ambassadors and having good relationships with strong economic countries is good for our economy. I do not think that we should have to pay for a higher return on our retirement portfolio with the lives of American soldiers. Quoted:
Quoted:
No, not for a Nation our size with our current population and expected standard of living. Our economy is heavily tied now to global commerce as one of the world's leading exporters and importers of goods and services. We are so heavily dependent on global commerce that even economic impacts on nations other than our own that disrupt that global trade (even if it isn't trade directly to our nation) can impact our economic security. Think about the money that the US borrows every year from foreign nations to fund its public expenditures. Think about the foreign investment private companies receive each year from overseas. I think we should distinguish between political ties/influence and military action. Having ambassadors and having good relationships with strong economic countries is good for our economy. I do not think that we should have to pay for a higher return on our retirement portfolio with the lives of American soldiers. I don't think we should have to either, but economic strength is tied to our military strength and our entire way of life including our ability to support and defend the Constitution depend upon it.  It's a messed up world and there is no ignoring it unfortunately when you're as big as the USA.
We owe the American Service Members everything from our freedom to vote to the nice standard of living we enjoy and pass on to our children. We owe them a lot and I think Americans should all appreciate that more than they really do. |
|
Quoted:
Such as what? Countries with strong economies? There is a large list to choose from. There are plenty of countries that we trade with and those relationships should be fostered to the extent that they improve our own economic interests. My point is that there are different facets to the "isolationism" issue. Most will read it as "military intervention" etc. as I did. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, not for a Nation our size with our current population and expected standard of living. Our economy is heavily tied now to global commerce as one of the world's leading exporters and importers of goods and services. We are so heavily dependent on global commerce that even economic impacts on nations other than our own that disrupt that global trade (even if it isn't trade directly to our nation) can impact our economic security. Think about the money that the US borrows every year from foreign nations to fund its public expenditures. Think about the foreign investment private companies receive each year from overseas. I think we should distinguish between political ties/influence and military action. Having ambassadors and having good relationships with strong economic countries is good for our economy. I do not think that we should have to pay for a higher return on our retirement portfolio with the lives of American soldiers. Such as? I always here about how the US is so fucked for having it's current level of debt, but virtually every country in the world has a worse ratio of debt to GDP and assets. Such as what? Countries with strong economies? There is a large list to choose from. There are plenty of countries that we trade with and those relationships should be fostered to the extent that they improve our own economic interests. My point is that there are different facets to the "isolationism" issue. Most will read it as "military intervention" etc. as I did. Like all the ones with which we currently trade? And how do you suggest we get those traded goods to our shores without foreign interests diverting, hijacking, or terrorizing those shipments, thus raising the cost of those goods to the point that foreign trade is no longer cost effective? |
|
Quoted:
The Chinese culture has been around at least a few thousand years than nearly any other, and has had practically zero influence outside of Eastern Asia.... Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. Global civilization depends on reliable, safe sea lines of communication. Great Britain did that up until WWII, then the mantle fell to the US. And, now, to China...
TC They've gotten so good at it, they MAY have actually gotten a handful of troops to Syria (in the Med), something we only mastered in, oh, you know, the 1700s... The Chinese culture has been around at least a few thousand years than nearly any other, and has had practically zero influence outside of Eastern Asia.... |
|
Quoted:
And, now, to China...
TC Quoted:
Quoted:
No. Global civilization depends on reliable, safe sea lines of communication. Great Britain did that up until WWII, then the mantle fell to the US. And, now, to China...
TC and we handed it to them on a silver platter. |
|
Quoted:
Yup! It worked so well we ended up getting bombed into WWII. Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the phrase you seek is: non-interventionism and yes it can work. Seek out the candidates that support this Yup! It worked so well we ended up getting bombed into WWII. Say it slowly, nooooon-interventionissssssmmmmmmm; it's not hard. Three camps: 1) invade 'em and give 'em Democracy if it kills 'em 2) Non-interventionist 3) Isolationism We have proven that 1&3 don't work, time for something else. |
|
Quoted:
Look at the Barbary Pirates. The USA didn't want to get involved in that mess, but we didn't have much choice did we? If you're going to trade with foreign nations you end up sooner or later having to get involved in foreign military actions. Indeed yes but trying to Democratize the entire world isn't working for us neither is the regime change game |
|
Quoted:
As good as it sounds it wasn't even possible back in WW2. You mean the attack n Americas pacific empirial holding taken at gun point form tbe locals? Did you ever read about what FDR was doing globally, was that isolationist? Whatever your politics, its a mistake to be historically ignorant. |
|
Quoted:
No. Global civilization depends on reliable, safe sea lines of communication. Great Britain did that up until WWII, then the mantle fell to the US. Can't we let someone else take over for a few years while we deal with our $20 trillion debt? I nominate Norway. |
|
Being involved in global commerce does no mean having military bases and troops in those countries.
There is no reason the USA cannot trade with any country and NOT have to have a military presence in that country. If said country messes up just stop trading with them. Really being one of the largest economies means they need us more that we need them. |
|
Quoted:
I think the phrase you seek is: non-interventionism and yes it can work. Seek out the candidates that support this This. MYOB, be the strongest country possible. Live up to your word. Take care of your allies. When an enemy arises, tell them to knock it the fuck off. When they don't heed your warning, take quick, brutal, decisive action to smite that enemy, living up to your word and leaving no question that you are not someone to trifle with. Be the best friend anyone could have and the worst enemy. Make sure generations have heard of your might and sing songs in remembrance of how you helped them or crushed them. |
|
Quoted:
Isolationaism: noun: isolationism a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries. Can it work? defend only our borders, and citizens wherever they be. Didn't work for Jefferson against the Barbary Corsairs. Certainly won't work now in the days of jet aircraft. Even if you wash your hands of Europe and let the powers of that continent and Asia draw and redraw borders as they may, you'll still have piracy to contend with. The United States has an absolutely staggering level of trade with the rest of the world. Megatons of goods arriving and departing in tens of thousands of ships and aircraft. The only thing protecting those ships and aircraft, and everyone else's ships and aircraft for that matter, is the threat of American intervention. Remove that threat, and the world will see a resurgence of piracy not seen since the birth of your country. Given that there's a new caliphate in the world for the first time since the fall of the one which backed the Berbers, that said caliphate has already linked up with groups in Somalia which are the source of modern pirate tactics, and that the caliph has sanctioned and encouraged the trade of slaves, especially women, I'd say that American return to isolationism would be a disaster for the entire western world, and indeed humanity as a whole. |
|
Quoted:
Say it slowly, nooooon-interventionissssssmmmmmmm; it's not hard. Three camps: 1) invade 'em and give 'em Democracy if it kills 'em 2) Non-interventionist 3) Isolationism We have proven that 1&3 don't work, time for something else. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the phrase you seek is: non-interventionism and yes it can work. Seek out the candidates that support this Yup! It worked so well we ended up getting bombed into WWII. Say it slowly, nooooon-interventionissssssmmmmmmm; it's not hard. Three camps: 1) invade 'em and give 'em Democracy if it kills 'em 2) Non-interventionist 3) Isolationism We have proven that 1&3 don't work, time for something else. Number 1 does work if done properly. SEE: Germany and Japan as examples. The problem is we don't go in and defeat countries anymore. |
|
It could work so long as the US desired to have an economy and lifestyle closer to the 1930s. The standard of living would plummet and very few could afford what is taken for granted. Pick your 10 favorite items made in China and realize you probably could no longer afford them. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
I think we should distinguish between political ties/influence and military action. Having ambassadors and having good relationships with strong economic countries is good for our economy. I do not think that we should have to pay for a higher return on our retirement portfolio with the lives of American soldiers. Quoted:
Quoted:
No, not for a Nation our size with our current population and expected standard of living. Our economy is heavily tied now to global commerce as one of the world's leading exporters and importers of goods and services. We are so heavily dependent on global commerce that even economic impacts on nations other than our own that disrupt that global trade (even if it isn't trade directly to our nation) can impact our economic security. Think about the money that the US borrows every year from foreign nations to fund its public expenditures. Think about the foreign investment private companies receive each year from overseas. I think we should distinguish between political ties/influence and military action. Having ambassadors and having good relationships with strong economic countries is good for our economy. I do not think that we should have to pay for a higher return on our retirement portfolio with the lives of American soldiers. Political ties/influence and military action go hand in hand. If you have no military or are not willing to use it, you are always dealing from a position of weakness. To believe you can have one without the other is delusional. |
|
Quoted:
Say it slowly, nooooon-interventionissssssmmmmmmm; it's not hard. Three camps: 1) invade 'em and give 'em Democracy if it kills 'em 2) Non-interventionist 3) Isolationism We have proven that 1&3 don't work, time for something else. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the phrase you seek is: non-interventionism and yes it can work. Seek out the candidates that support this Yup! It worked so well we ended up getting bombed into WWII. Say it slowly, nooooon-interventionissssssmmmmmmm; it's not hard. Three camps: 1) invade 'em and give 'em Democracy if it kills 'em 2) Non-interventionist 3) Isolationism We have proven that 1&3 don't work, time for something else. You can pretend that 2 and 3 are different, but not nearly as much as you think. Either way, you are dealing from a position of weakness. And there is a 4th choice.........................intervene whenever we damn well feel like it and stomp the shit out of anyone who doesn't like it. Let them fear us whether we get their respect or not. |
|
Quoted:
You mean the attack n Americas pacific empirial holding taken at gun point form tbe locals? Did you ever read about what FDR was doing globally, was that isolationist? Whatever your politics, its a mistake to be historically ignorant. Quoted:
Quoted:
As good as it sounds it wasn't even possible back in WW2. You mean the attack n Americas pacific empirial holding taken at gun point form tbe locals? Did you ever read about what FDR was doing globally, was that isolationist? Whatever your politics, its a mistake to be historically ignorant. Talk about being historically ignorant. Pacific empire? 
|
|
Quoted:
Being involved in global commerce does no mean having military bases and troops in those countries. There is no reason the USA cannot trade with any country and NOT have to have a military presence in that country. If said country messes up just stop trading with them. Really being one of the largest economies means they need us more that we need them. This shit just keeps getting better and better. |