AntiM wrote:Bring the troops home = close our big bases overseas, effectively making our military next to useless. Isolationism didn't work in 1812, why would it work now?
Isolationism is the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, foreign trade, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities. Two other terms often confused with Isolationism are:
1. Non-interventionism – Says that political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense). However, most non-interventionists are supporters of free trade, travel, and support certain international agreements, and therefore differ from isolationists.
2. Protectionism – Relates more often to economics, there should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence". Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul
Ron Paul wrote:the Democratic and Republican parties argue that the U.S. must ether confront every evil in every corner of the globe or risk danger at home. We need to “fight them over there” they say, so we don’t have to “fight them over here.” This argument presents a false choice. We do not have to pick between interventionism and vulnerability.
Moving forward, I suggest that we as Americans adhere to these five principles:
1. We do not abdicate American sovereignty to global institutions. The purpose of the United States is to protect the liberty of the American people.
2. We provide a strong national defense, but we do not police the world. America should be armed with defensive weapons capable of repelling any attack. We should spend all appropriate money to make sure that no country in world can credibly threaten us.
3. We obey the Constitution and follow the rule of law. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war. Congress abandoned that responsibility during the buildup to the Iraq war and must never make that mistake again. When wars are undeclared, they drag on with no clear plan or exit strategy. If we must fight, we should do so with overwhelming force, win as quickly as possible and promptly withdraw.
4. We do not engage in nation-building.
5. We stay out of the internal affairs of other nations. America should conduct trade, travel and diplomacy with all willing nations. Intervention, however, always has unintended consequences and almost always gets us in trouble.
tamarakay wrote:No. Never in a million years. Not ever. No.
That's as political as I get.
No. No. No.
AntiM wrote:.....it is a tangled mess, and I do not think Mr. Paul has any sort of over-arching vision of what he suggests truly entails. ........... Nice sentiments, but I don't see any real policy there, no plan on implementation. I see bumperstickers, not diplomacy.
AntiM wrote:I actually know a Santorum supporter. He likes the "moral values" stance. We are old friends, and have hidden each other on FB. He used to be an intelligent man, but his brain turned to religious goo when he quit drinking. I am not kidding.
tamarakay wrote:AntiM wrote:I actually know a Santorum supporter. He likes the "moral values" stance. We are old friends, and have hidden each other on FB. He used to be an intelligent man, but his brain turned to religious goo when he quit drinking. I am not kidding.
Yes, I had to block my own brother on facebook. Really I don't know how we were raised in the same house. He's a birther among other things. I asked him nicely to stop posting his nonsense on my wall, but he couldn't help himself. It was a very sad day for me. Once my mom and dad are gone we will probably not see each other much. Which is sad, I do love him.
I agree about Santorum being a nut job. How many kinds of scary is it that he is a serious candidate? Many many kinds to me.
stinkyfoot wrote:ygmir wrote:Ugly Dougly wrote:You'd have a fucking shirt-cocker in the Oval Office?????
Can we just change from Democrats and Republicans to Shirtcockers and Non-Shirtcockers.
knowmad wrote:If voting changed things, it would have been made Illegal long ago; or, at least as heavily regulated as Firearms or the formation of Militias.
theCryptofishist wrote:knowmad wrote:If voting changed things, it would have been made Illegal long ago; or, at least as heavily regulated as Firearms or the formation of Militias.
Much as I'd like to join the SparklePonyParty, I can remember that both in Florida 2000 and in Ohio 2004, there was voting that might have made a difference in a battleground state...
But besides that, the continuing attempts at voter suppression indicate that there is enough power in the practice that it's worth manipulating turn-out.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests