"Sen. Lieberman noted that, historically, periods of U.S. isolationism and
withdrawal have been followed by terrible wars and ravaged economies."This statement needs to be examined critically. WWI ended the first
great period of internationalism. So WWI created the isolationism, isolationism
did not bring about WWI. Moreover, the United States entered WWI largely for
reasons of commercial ties, so international commerce dragged us into that war.
Moreover the circumstances of reparations and loan retirement made Nazism
possible. So one misbegotten war created another war - WWII.The
Cold War was in my opinion entirely unnecessary. With Stalin's death
Russia began a long steady change which could have been taken advantage of, were
it not for our visceral fear of socialism. So with the Cold War we got Korea
and the disastrous Vietnam War. This was during a period of growing
internationalism among the western powers.We are now in the second
great period of internationalism, but with it the world is more economically
unstable than ever, which could lead to yet another major war.Senator Lieberman's statement needs examination.
This is why we shouldn't be treating illegal aliens better than we treat
our veterans. Many Americans prosper on the backs of American servicemen whose
sacrifices helped ensure the sort of global stability that made such prosperity
possible. Increasingly American businessmen and stockholders are
trying to get out of paying our veterans and other Americans a fair compensation
for their time and faithful labors. This they are doing in part by paying
corrupt politicians to support policies specifically and consciously calculated
to drive wages down. Among these policies is purposely allowing
illegal aliens to flood this nation; purposely spreading immigration-law
anti-enforcement propaganda; and trying to raise the ceiling on the
already-abused H-1B visa system by which American businessmen are effectively
replacing American workers with foreigners. Thus in this country we have three
American STEMs graduating for every one STEM job available. If
we're going to send American men and women to war around the world in a
hope of stabilizing the world of commerce in the interest of increased profit
then the least we can do is not stab these servicemen in the back once they get
home in the manner I have described.
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay
any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any
foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.That of course
from President John F. Kennedy.I also believe what Sen. Lieberman
said that when the U.S. withdraws, the world becomes a worse place. Sure seems
to be true, and what has surprised me is how fast that can happen. I'd
hoped for a few years of standdown time from overseas adventures, but it appears
the bad guys are not taking a break. Fight them here, fight them there, but the
sad truth of this world is, we WILL have to fight them somewhere. Or lose our
freedom. As well as our heads.
marxist says "the cold war was entirely unnecessary" The
cold war was just there. It wasn't really started, it was inherited by the
Western Democracys, who, having just come off of another totalitarian attempt at
enslavement, were not ready to sacrifice the hard won freedom of WW11 to a
communist system. Take a look at places on earth where hard left wing political
systems reign. North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela for example. Whether hard
right wing, or hard left wing, (there is pretty much no difference) the liberty
of individules (religion, speech, press, ect.) is taken away by the state. We
have to fight against that when it threatens, which seems to be always. Our "visceral fear of socialism" as marxist puts it, is not a
fear of socialism itself. It is a fear of the threat to freedom that
accompanies socialism/communism/marxism as practiced in the world. Not many
good examples of liberty there, but plenty of bad ones.
This comment really chaps my hide: "that America occupies a special place
in the world. And this is especially true because we have no ambition to seize
another country’s land or rule its people"Tell that to the
Mexicans who used to own a substantial portion of the West. Tell that to the
Hawaiians. Tell that to the Spanish who lost the Philipines and Cuba to US
aggression. Tell that to the Central American countries we have invaded with
impunity and installed various puppet regimes. How can you say that with a
straight face that "we have no ambition to seize another country's
land"? America is a good country for a variety of reasons. We
generally believe in self rule (unless you are a minority and try to vote) and
are the land of opportunity (pay is better here than China or Guatemala). Most
people are charitable. We believe in religious freedom (unless you contradict
religious fundamentalist doctrine though). So, we do have it better. We can
spend a lot on military toys (even the police have 'em), so we can invade
just about anyone with impunity. If that is special, well, I guess we are.
Staying engaged does not mean putting troops everywhere there is a conflict.
The Republican/neo-con approach is to send the military, and we most oftern make
it worse and solve nothing.
Sen. Lieberman is at the forefront of neoconservatism. Need I say more?
It's this constant meddling in the affairs of other nations that has gotten
us where we are. I truly believe there would be no such thing as al Qaeda or
ISIS if the U.S. government had not been involved in manipulating events in the
Middle East for the past century, and especially in the past 65 or 70 years.
Marxist has it right regarding the much-maligned term of "isolationism."
Non-interventionism has its virtues.
The U.S. tried non-intervention in the 1930s . 60 million died. There are no
ordinaryfolksThe American glass isn't half empty for you, it's
90% empty.EsquireRepublican/neo-con approachYeah,
I guess thats what Presidents Kennedy and Roosevelt were. Republican
neo-cons.SEYCall it what you want, isolationism,
non-interventionism, it all has the same result.
SCfan, so you favor sending in the troops, I gather. Iraq and Afghanistan
weren't enough? You think the overthrown of the democratic government of
Iran in 1953 was a good deal, for which we have paid dearly ever since? And
pointing a Kennedy and Roosevelt? Not only is that not modern
history/experience, but neither of those Presidents invaded the Middle East.
Roosevelt? You equate what we are seeing with WWII? Kennedy?
Eisenhower's Cuba experience or adviser in Viet Nam? You put out cryptic,
unsubstantiated statements that are not meant for substance and leave us to
guess what you mean. I'm pointing at the neo-cons of the past 30 years,
who as an ideology, didn't really exist prior to the Reagan years. You are
pointing at what, exactly?
Oh listen to the rantings of a seattle liberal pacifist, whose logic
doesn't even come close to meeting the accuracy smell test. There would be
no Mexico, Central America, or Cuba if these accusations were true...it would
all be called the United States.
EsquireWell what I'm pointing to is that tyranny, no matter
what age it takes place in, is either fought against, or accepted. There is no
difference between fighting NAZI in WW11 than there is fighting terrorists
today. Roosevelt had to get the nation to move away from the isolationist
ideology that was present. Ironically, it was coming from the right wing in
those days. These days it seems to be largely from the left, unless you include
the liberatarians like Paul. Now I say all this assuming that you agree that
Roosevelt fighting in WW11 was a correct and noble endevor. If you don't
agree, then there is no common ground to continue with. And as a P.S. What JFK
said, that my first post referenced I believe shows that he too would have been
a great war time leader/cold warrior/anti-terrorist President.
In reference to America's "land grabbing" military actions, within
the last hundred years or so we have mostly been buying land. Alaska comes to
mind. We built the Panama Canal, and gave the Panama Canal Zone back to Panama
... and paid them to take it.I think America IS exceptional, and
there are many countries in the world that now enjoy freedom that wouldn't
be if we didn't exist. Most of these are countries that transformed into
constitutional republics following our example.
"The world needs America to stay engaged" ??? Well ... that won't
happen with the guy in the White House who spends more time on the golf course
and Hollywood fund raisers than worrying about head chopping Muslim terror
organizations ... who he referred to earlier this year as "JV" as in
junior varsity. Well I would say these guys are certainly Varsity now and in
fact I think the JV term actually refers to the light weight faculty lounge
professor in the White House. America is in so much trouble....
We could stay engaged if only the President wasn't clearing brush off his
Texas ranch three out of every four weeks.
"He strongly disagreed with those who say America should turn inward and
ignore the world’s trouble spots." Liberman is precisely talking about
Obama and the liberals philosophy, bring the troops home and cut ties with Irag
and soon to be Afganistan only to go back to a much more difficult fight.
Obviously this community organizer lacks knowledge and sophistication for the
re:Ernest T. Bassis this the same guy that killed Sadam Hussin and
handed a "stable" Iraq over to Barack? Take a look at Iraq now
...what's left of it. Seems to me that Barack's JV comment about ISIS
is ...well typical of our little liberal in the White House.
When I read the comments of a few on here, I really wonder which history they
studied. Instances where the US was the aggressor are in the 1800's,
Mexican War? 1846. Spanish American War? 1898. Since then, when exactly did
the US invade to grab land? The Cold War? started by the Soviets after WWII,
anyone remember Berlin blockade? It wasn't the US that started that and
partitioning Germany. Korea? UN treaty. Vietnam, SEATO treaty, and we took
over where France left off. We didn't start it. Grenada? Nope, we were
asked to intervene by the elected government being attacked by Cuba. Panama?
Nope, our troops were attacked, imprisoned and killed. Noriega started it, we
finished it. Gulf War? Nope, Kuwait was invaded by that playful rascal,
Saddam. Bosnia? Nope. Gulf War II? unfinished business. Afghanistan?
remember 9/11 anyone? So where was it exactly that we wanted land? That's
right, nowhere. Without the US, the world goes to the crapper. Economics,
freedom, stability. Take that away the world devolves rapidly.Oh,
and the bad guys always have a vote in this too.....
“America has both a moral and practical obligation to be a global force
for good.” Right, and that means no more “nation building” . .
. OK? And no more “Conservative” leadership of the kind that
commits a massive military force in unprovoked wars.“We simply
want to advance stability, freedom and opportunity in the world.” Right.
As long as it’s consistent with OUR best interests. And let’s
remember that too, shall we?We don’t want to be the big dumb
chump of the world, who can be manipulated by little guys to beat up other
little guys, do we?We have to keep THIS nation’s best
interests in mind FIRST.“But the sacrifice of those soldiers
kept war far away from America and helped make the world safer, more stable and
more prosperous, with more freedom.”I wish that were true, but
GW’s Iraq war made the world less safe, less stable, and less
prosperous.Sorry folks, but if we don’t want to repeat
history, then we had better recognize it for what it is . . . Don’t you
so-called "patriot"1-US servicemen killed Sadam, not bush. 2-Iraq was far more stable under Sadam, who posed no threat to you, me, or any
other American. The current situation was just a matter of time, no matter who
occupied the White House. It's so odd that you guys criticize
President Obama for taking vacations when that is the only thing bush
accomplished, aside from massive debt and two lost wars.
I actually feel strongly the exact opposite.The world needs us to
stay away and stop interfering. Every time we try to "fix something" we
end up creating dozens of terrorist groups. Our cures are worse than the
original disease itself. Malaki's government and ISIS are far worse than
Saddam ever was.
Earnest T. Bass: "US servicemen killed Sadam, not bush."I'm sure you quickly correct the record every time someone said
"Obama killed Bin Laden", with a simple "no he didn't, a SEAL
team did!". Right?Any time that the good guys look the other way
while bad guys do evil things, the world becomes a much more dangerous place.
That goes for neighborhoods, cities, states, countries, and the whole world.How many evil deeds could have been prevented if someone had just not
said "that's not my problem, I don't want to get involved".
Hey JoeCapitalist2 -"How many evil deeds could have been
prevented . . . " . . . If GW Bush would NOT have attacked and occupied Iraq
with MASSIVE FORCE under false pretenses?As the Real Maverick
pointed out . . . "Malaki's government and ISIS are far worse than
Saddam ever was."Because of GW's interference in the
region, WE OURSELVES ARE TO BLAME for many of the atrocities that have taken
place there since the demise of Sadaam Hussein and his government.Sadaam led a SECULAR government that did not tolerate religious extremists.When we removed him, we took the lid off of Islamic Extremism, and
it's spreading quickly.
Marxist -The cold war in your opinion was unnecessary huh?Well, actually, it was very necessary.Communism was insidiously
spreading, and most of the countries that were overtaken by Communism suffered
grievously because of it.Sure, it wasn't true Marxist
Communism. And it wasn't a true ongoing Marxist revolution. But what passed
for Communism was BAD NEWS for most of the world.I concede that Marx
was brilliant, but he was also far too presumptuous and overconfident in his
prognostications. Sure Karl, the thesis and the anti-thesis creates the
synthesis . . . and blah blah . . . and after the revolution, true Communism and
harmony will rule the world.The reality of Stalin and then Kruchev
and others didn't remotely resemble the ideal of the revolution as
described by Marx.The drive to spread Communism was International
but the concentration of power was purely nationalistic and Russian-centric.Conservative Russians today long for the days when Russia had
overwhelming POWER. Pure POWER is what Communism in practice was all about .
. . NOT ideals.And yes, if we had let the USSR have its way, the
world would have suffered much more than it did.
Hey SC Fan –Painting JFK as a ideologicaly equivalent to
today’s “Conservatism,” is ridiculous.He used good
sense, and in his day he was accused of being far too weak and diffident by
Conservatives War Hawks. General Curtis LeMay was furious with JFK
for deciding to blockade Cuba instead of nuking Cuba during the Cuban Missile
crisis.“This is almost as bad as the appeasement at
Munich.”— Air Force General Curtis LeMay In other words JFK
and BHO have a lot in common, They both endured the “appeaser” and
“isolationist” criticisms directed at them by nonsensical Right Wing
militarists.And guess what. Neither Kennedy nor Obama gave a hoot
about what a bunch of unthinking, overwrought “Conservatives” had to
say about them.
America is the world's policeman. We keep the bullies and tyrants at bay,
more or less. That is why Iran, North Korea, Russia and China don't like
us. (Bush had an idiot write a speech for him where he called Iran part of the
axis of evil, so the fact we have to keep Iran at bay is partly our own created
problem).If we stop this role, there are a lot of people who are
going to be happy and start bullying their neighbors, like China in the South
'China' Sea. It would be good for people like ISIS, a lot of people
will suffer.But it costs an awful lot of money to do this.
(Remember, the 16 trillion dollar debt and I think that Paul Krugman is wrong
when he says it isn't a problem) In the long term we should be
enthusiastic in helping our allies build up their navies, air forces, etc. In
the short term we've got a lot of problems.I hope China keeps
loaning us money so we can stop them from bullying others.