Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/11/2002 4:31:55 AM EDT
Isolationism is frequently demonized as wanting to have no foreign commerce, and sticking your head in the sand. But listen to the words of George Washington, from his Farewell Address, September 17, 1796: [b]The General Foreign Policy[/b] Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? [b] Reasons to Avoid Playing Foreign Favorites[/b] The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to [u]lead it astray from its duty and its interest. [/u] So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a [u]variety of evils.[/u] Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, [u]in cases where no real common interest exists[/u], and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by [u]exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.[/u] [b]More Comments[/b] As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, [u]that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. [/u] The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, [u]to have with them as little political connexion as possible.[/u] So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. [b]Peace thru Strength, AND Isolationism[/b] If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may [u]defy material injury from external annoyance; [/u] when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; [u]when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as [size=4]our interest,[/size=4] guided by justice, shall counsel.[/u] Read more here: [url]http://azimuth.harcourtcollege.com/history/ayers/chapter7/7.3.washingtonsfarewell.html[/url]
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 4:46:49 AM EDT
with all due respect for yourself and the general, we no longer have the benefit of an impassable 3000 mile moat. to allow events to take their own course and not act may result in us facing the entire world. nor can we afford to ignore international events. we have too many strategic dependencies to let others decide our destiny. i do not advocate meddling in every little internal or external conflict. however, there are occasions when it would be better to extend ourselves and nip things in the bud than wait and confront a mature and fully developed enemy.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 4:54:14 AM EDT
lurker - re-read the "Peace thru Strength and Isolationism" section. Washington wrote what he wrote AFTER the USA had been at war ON THIS CONTINENT with England, and in league with France. He wasn't depending on some "mote." He knew all too well its a VERY small world. No offense, but your response is typical of the mindset that says "we're smarter now than those poor dumb Founding Fathers" Isolationism puts American interests first, funnels all the profits INTO the USA, and creates a nation NO ONE dare mess with (paraphrase of Washington's comments) At that point, WHO CARES what the rest of the world does, CUZ THEY AIN'T GONNA DO IT TO US.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 5:08:19 AM EDT
ok, i reread it. i offer you this possibility - it's 1948, and because we declined to help, britain and the ussr have fallen before the wehrmacht. and now, hitler not only has the bomb, he has delivery systems too! please, mister hitler, dont hurt us? ok, enough sci-fi. i'm not strongly inclined either toward interventionism or isolationism. my position would be: i dont see that an unyielding attachment to either policy is useful in a changing world. i think flexibility is the key to survival and growth, not adherence to any one set policy.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 5:13:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By lurker: ok, i reread it. i offer you this possibility - it's 1948, and because we declined to help, britain and the ussr have fallen before the wehrmacht. and now, hitler not only has the bomb, he has delivery systems too! please, mister hitler, dont hurt us? ok, enough sci-fi. i'm not strongly inclined either toward interventionism or isolationism. my position would be: i dont see that an unyielding attachment to either policy is useful in a changing world. i think flexibility is the key to survival and growth, not adherence to any one set policy.
View Quote
again re-re-read the LAST line.... "when [b]we may choose[/b] peace or war, as [b] our interest,[/b] guided by justice, shall counsel." NO ONE is saying we adhere to a "policy." We adhere to "our interest." Again, no offense, but I think we've been prejudiced against taking a serious look at "isolationism" as a viable US foreign policy by the "intellectuals" among us.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 5:22:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: NO ONE is saying we adhere to a "policy." We adhere to "our interest." Again, no offense, but I think we've been prejudiced against taking a serious look at "isolationism" as a viable US foreign policy by the "intellectuals" among us.
View Quote
i think we're struggling toward agreement here. just now i dont really see anyone else dragging us toward war. we supposedly are having a restraining effect on israel, and we're having trouble reaching consensus about whether/when to strike iraq/iran/saudi arabia/france. where do you think the US exerts excessive influence? and who do you see controlling US policy?
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 5:27:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/11/2002 5:28:45 AM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By lurker: i think we're struggling toward agreement here.
View Quote
I agree. I think. [:D]
where do you think the US exerts excessive influence?
View Quote
I think we did in Afghanistan, when we funded Usama against the Commies. Re-read Washingtons words above re: "playing foreign favorites." All we did in that situation is create USama bin Laden as a viable force to kill Americans when the winds of political favoritism changed. Its EXACTLY Washington's point. That's just one example. Viet Nam is another.
and who do you see controlling US policy?
View Quote
The one-worlders, Trilateral Commission types. Bush Sr was one of them. I suspect Zionist forces exert FAR too much influence over US politics as well.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 5:35:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/11/2002 5:36:39 AM EDT by lurker]
Originally Posted By garandman: I think we did in Afghanistan, when we funded Usama against the Commies. Re-read Washingtons words above re: "playing foreign favorites." Viet Nam is another.
View Quote
interesting examples. not to hijack your thread, but i think we helped out (interfered) in afghanistan to give the soviets a "vietnam" of their own. osama was an unexpected fringe "benefit".
Originally Posted By garandman: The one-worlders, Trilateral Commission types. Bush Sr was one of them. I suspect Zionist forces exert FAR too much influence over US politics as well.
View Quote
ive had my say. i personally think we have more to fear from internal influences, but im sure some will disagree. at any rate, your comments should bring them out any minute now. carry on!
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 5:42:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By lurker: i personally think we have more to fear from internal influences, but im sure some will disagree. at any rate, your comments should bring them out any minute now. carry on!
View Quote
The one worlders, Trilateral types and Zionists ARE internal influences. Peace. ANyone else wanna comment on Washingtons comments????
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 6:02:39 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 6:50:34 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 7:07:56 AM EDT
That is exactly what President Washington was saying. If it is important to us, by all means plunge in. If not, then don't get involved. We've created a lot of our own problems by ignoring that policy. Now that the p[roblems have fully developed, we have to follow through. Bottom line, hit 'em hard, and learn for next time.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 7:16:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: The one-worlders, Trilateral Commission types. Bush Sr was one of them. I suspect Zionist forces exert FAR too much influence over US politics as well.
View Quote
Oh,Oh....This oughta draw some flies....
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 7:24:28 AM EDT
So we should turn our backs on one of the few allies we have (Israel) and pull back after 30 years of arab terrorism? If so, you're an idiot Gman. [:(]
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 7:26:51 AM EDT
Some things never change. The principles GW discussed then have not changed, the agenda of those who gain power has. The real differences lies in ; different weapons systems, faster travel, faster communication. You are right garand, the term "iaolationism" has been used to demonize true American patriots, just as "Christian Patriot" is synonomous with "Islamic Terrorist" in terms of threat people "feel" when they hear the term....
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 8:04:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/11/2002 8:32:22 AM EDT by imposter]
Washington did not disfavor cooperation with foreign nations. After all, he fully supported our alliance with France and Spain. We would most likely not have won his war without the French. Based upon this, I do not think it is possible to describe GW as an isolationist. When necessary, GW supported alliances and international agreements. I think GW was saying that we need to be focused on our interests at all times. Note that GW says we should not have any connnections with foreign nations, but that we should have as little as possible. I would argue that NATO for instance was as little connection with Europe as was possible. Ignoring the balance of power in Europe would have been against our interests. A united Europe, dominated by either Germany or the Soviets, would be more powerful than the US, and would have eventually posed a threat. This is the justification for WWI, WWII and the Cold War. Our little foray into true isolationism, between WWI and WWII, was a disaster. [b]Washington did not say we should ignore the outside world to the extent that we stop pursuing our interests.[/b] I think what Washington had to say has a great deal of relevance to our attachment to Israel, and I can detect no current realpolitik interests we have with that state, but our economic - and therefore political - interests with the Arabs, the Europeans and the Japanese are very significant and should not be abandoned. I would hardly characterize our relations with Japan or the Netherlands as a "passionate attachment." Our relations are based upon "common interest," as recommended by GW himself.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 8:04:52 AM EDT
If we would only stop supporting the wackos in the world, we wouldn't have so many problems... wwII---ford,bayer,etc.....and ungodly amounts of supplies to the russians.who were using trucks supplied by US to chill their own people-in siberia. Vietnam...oh my god..the first big oil war..anyone else know anybody that worked for the company installing pipelines? And we were fighting russian pawns...at the same time that we are sending shipments of food to russia<--this has to be the stupidest Afghanistan....supporting both sides...shipments of food etc...still ongoing Diplomatic problems with china...big joke...cut off imports for one week and watch the chinese gov't go poof.... But everyone says we need friends and diplomatic partners.......judge these people by the same rules as a good prostitute....sometimes we don't even get kissed.....
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 8:43:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: I think we did in Afghanistan, when we funded Usama against the Commies.
View Quote
We didn't "fund Usama." We backed the mujahadeen because it was in our interest to do so. At the time, Osama Bin Laden was a young man and not in any high position.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 8:44:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86:
Originally Posted By garandman: The one-worlders, Trilateral Commission types. Bush Sr was one of them. I suspect Zionist forces exert FAR too much influence over US politics as well.
View Quote
Oh,Oh....This oughta draw some flies....
View Quote
Bullshit usually does...
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 9:03:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rjroberts: That is exactly what President Washington was saying. If it is important to us, by all means plunge in. If not, then don't get involved. We've created a lot of our own problems by ignoring that policy. Now that the p[roblems have fully developed, we have to follow through. Bottom line, hit 'em hard, and learn for next time.
View Quote
Point well made. We so often try to police the rest of the world and fail so miserably at managing our own affairs. What ever happened to America First? Read the Sig-line.
Link Posted: 6/11/2002 9:35:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By garandman: I think we did in Afghanistan, when we funded Usama against the Commies.
View Quote
We didn't "fund Usama." We backed the mujahadeen because it was in our interest to do so. At the time, Osama Bin Laden was a young man and not in any high position.
View Quote
A razor thin technical distinction only. We used the Mujahadeen as our anti-Communist pawn, let them get killed doing our bidding, then pulled the rug out from under them when political winds changed. If you think this didn't create animosity in the young Usama, who WAS of fighting age at that time, yer coconuts.
Top Top