Insult you how? Isolationism has never worked the same as socialism has never worked. Denigrating isolationism isn’t pro-war.
It was a coup.
- Thread starter dbmhoosier
- Start date
An Oil embargo against Japan for war they were waging with China is not isolationist.
I suppose that's fair. I guess it comes down to what the definition of isolationist is. If you want to go full Wakanda definition, then I'd argue the United States has never been truly isolationist.
How does not funding wars make one isolationist. Is China isolationist for making friends in south America since they are not pushing wars in the region. NATO is looking like an Emperialistic organization.
A lot of what Ron Paul has said over the last 40 or so years has proven out. We need more nuts. They are good for health. His podcast shows are the best. One topic recently discussed are the dangers of govt. regulations and price controls that Dems want.? When the current regime adds price controls to their agenda, I hope to get a good ticket for the line to get toilet paper because shelves will be empty. I certainly don't want to use the paper that the Democrat propaganda BS is printed on even if that is all their message may be good for. I have those papers reserved to get the firepit started.
A lot of what Ron Paul has said over the last 40 or so years has proven out. We need more nuts. They are good for health. His podcast shows are the best. One topic recently discussed are the dangers of govt. regulations and price controls that Dems want.? When the current regime adds price controls to their agenda, I hope to get a good ticket for the line to get toilet paper because shelves will be empty. I certainly don't want to use the paper that the Democrat propaganda BS is printed on even if that is all their message may be good for. I have those papers reserved to get the firepit started.
If you took Ron Paul's advice 10 years ago and pulled all of your investments out of the stock market because (as he claimed) a crash was inevitable, advice that he repeated about 5 times since then, you would be crying about not realizing the incredible gains you opted out from. He's pretty nutty, and his son is worse.
Agreed. We need more Ron Paul's, Rand Paul's, Massie's, Mike lee's in the GOP. Men who aren't content to kick the can.
Supporting Ukraine against Russia's war against them is in the interest of our allies and the US.
Here's the thing - whether we like it or not, what happens in the world affects us. Despite Washington's warnings, we've made foreign alliances and agreements since the founding of the country.
The world is connected today more than it's ever been. A strike in a foreign country or a war that shuts down a shipping lane affects us directly now.
While we can't control the whole world, we have to be involved because, if we're not, events will overtake us. We ignored/tolerated mid-east terrorism until it came to our shores.
No one likes it, but we don't want a WWII-type disaster, so we put out fires and block despots out of necessity - not the rest of the world's.
Last edited:
Is that the root cause, or was it our meddling and getting entangled in the Middle East--propping up dictators and supporting leaders who were brutalizing their people to stave off communism in those countries?
Now, maybe that was the best choice at the time, and maybe preventing the spread of communism (assuming it wasn't going to collapse in on itself without our help) was worth the cost we've paid from that blowback. But I don't think it's right to say we've been hands off with the Middle East since WW 2.
Maybe a response to this is that we should have been even more involved, almost more colonial in our approach there. That would have come with a whole set of other consequences--including the internal politics and attitudes of our country. But its worth thinking about.
Seems like revisionist history to deflect blame from Harris. There was no way the Dem party was going to pull off bypassing a black woman VP for the candidacy if Biden withdrew. The party would have imploded.
I do like how, now, someone is saying Harris really was given the border to deal with, because it was so unpopular.
OK, so we can stop lying about that now, arguing over pedantic details like what a "czar" is? Good.
But here's the thing: there was nothing preventing Harris from actually working on the border--visiting it, studying the problems there, looking into the complaints of too many people coming in, and developing a strategy to deal with that that was both useful and politically viable. Imagine her position in this race if she had done that (or maybe if she had, Biden never would have needed to drop out)?
Cynical rant to follow:
This is what you get in our country now, though: politicians on both sides who are more worried about the next election, spending their time in office spinning things and building their narrative, instead of actually sitting down and solving problems. And figuring out their exit strategy--how they will financially capitalize on their public service. Of course, one reason for that is that we elect people who have never really spent their careers solving real problems--instead, they are skilled at tooting their own horns, lying to people to raise money or get elected, and strategizing against people in their own party (i.e. backstabbing people). I don't think this is going to change, only get worse.
Somehow, though, we've all (me included) been conditioned to think that "Democracy" is so great, the best form of government, that it results in virtuous leaders--or at least leaders who are more virtuous and wise than those from other systems. As recently as 2008 and 2012, I believed this was bullish on the United States. I'm much more jaded now.
I'm not saying dump our republican system, though. It could very well be the case that the formula for best govt. has variables like Q, V, I, C in some combination (Quality of rulers; Virtue of rulers; Incentives on rulers; Checks on rulers), and that ours is better than others. Unfortunately, it's the Q and the V that move people, and the I and the C that are way more abstract and easy to forget about.
"You all better get your shit together or he is going to put us all in prison"... I heard that somewhere.
The oil embargo, and scrap steel embargo, doesn’t negate the isolationist sentiment.
Charles Lindbergh and other prominent Republicans were big proponents.
Wilkie Hall’s name sake Wendle Wilkie (a Republican Party Presidential nominee) proposed the one world approach.
Isolationist ferver died Sun 7th December.
All of that to say, we had a POTUS at the time that knew he didn’t have the popular support to make war. At least not quite yet. But boy did he want to.
Is American exceptionalism best expressed via the barrel of a gun in your mind?
Wasn’t FDR a Dem? … who knew the US wasn’t ready for war. As for the second question … I never beat my wife.
Tic toc, tic toc, tic toc … hemp rope origami , that’ll stop them from screaming climate change when it happens.
Exactly. FDR was a Dem. Who infected the country with the mindset that we should take up the mantle of “world savior”.
The millions that suffered and died under the Soviet Union thank us deeply for our assistance and support in the defeat of Nazi Germany.
I said we ignored/tolerated terrorism in the mid-east.
Of course we were involved, but we didn't do much to root out terrorism when we encountered it. Hell, they bombed the WTC in '93 and bin Laden was still allowed to roam free in Afghanistan. Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles at his camp, but that was about it.
