|
Anonymous
|
 Re: Why the Anti-War Movement Was Right  [Re: flow]
#1467466 - 04/17/03 02:00 PM (21 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
what evolving recommended there isn't isolationism.
|
 Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: Why the Anti-War Movement Was Right [Re: flow]
#1467498 - 04/17/03 02:07 PM (21 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
No, not isolationism. You can have free and open trade, no punitive or discriminatory tariffs and free travel between nations.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
 flow
outlaw immortal
Registered: 11/20/02
Posts: 496
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Why the Anti-War Movement Was Right [Re: ]
#1467516 - 04/17/03 02:11 PM (21 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
what evolving recommended there isn't isolationism.
how do you figure?
Quote:
Do you mean, bring home U.S. troops from the approx 130 or 140 countires they're stationed in BESIDES THE U.S.?
so, bring home all of the US troops stationed abroad. 1st step in isolationism. while a good idea in theory, most of our troops abroad are wanted there.
Quote:
Do you mean, stop giving money to foreign governments so their people won't perceive the U.S. as funding their oppressors?
so, no financial aid whatsoever to anyone. 2nd step in isolatoinism. again, while good in theory, the US gives more money in foreign aid than any other country, and many of these countries are suffering greatly right now, and would be far worse without some US help.
Quote:
Do you mean, stop using the U.S. military to make sure foreign countries are 'friendly' to U.S. business operations outside of the U.S. borders and not in international waters?
well, as for this one, im not sure what you mean by it.
Quote:
Do you mean, stop having the U.S. government fund foreign military operations in the name of combating 'the war on drugs?'
i agree with this one 100%. but i really don't think it is a big factor in terrorism.
Quote:
Do you mean stop having the U.S. government stop subsidizing U.S.business operations to promote them overseas?
so, end all business ties with other countries. shut down factories and "sweat shops" in all other countries and move them back to the US. 3rd step in isolationism. again, good idea in theory, but the US employs more people in foreign countries than does any other country. while sweat shops are usually bad, many of the people working there would be starving if they didn't.
|
flow
outlaw immortal
Registered: 11/20/02
Posts: 496
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Why the Anti-War Movement Was Right [Re: Evolving]
#1467527 - 04/17/03 02:13 PM (21 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You can have free and open trade,
but not support US businesses overseas? or just no US factories and such?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Why the Anti-War Movement Was Right [Re: flow]
#1467568 - 04/17/03 02:25 PM (21 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
how do you figure?
One entry found for isolationism.
Main Entry: iso?la?tion?ism
Pronunciation: -sh&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1922
: a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations
- iso?la?tion?ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun or adjective
Merriam-Webster Online: Isolationism
what he was recommending was that the US stop its military adventures in foreign countries. that and a policy of free trade. how many other nations in the world have so many troops stationed overseas? do you consider nations that do not station their military all over the world isolationist?
so, bring home all of the US troops stationed abroad. 1st step in isolationism. while a good idea in theory, most of our troops abroad are wanted there.
again, not isolationism. most of them are wanted there? first: can you prove this? i would argue that most of them are NOT wanted there. second: who cares if they ARE wanted there? why should american taxpayers pay to send american troops to be stationed in foriegn nations? it doesn't matter if they "want" us there or not.
so, no financial aid whatsoever to anyone. 2nd step in isolatoinism. again, while good in theory, the US gives more money in foreign aid than any other country, and many of these countries are suffering greatly right now, and would be far worse without some US help.
again, NOT isolationism. not giving away free money does not make us isolationist. so what if other countries would like to have our money? should american taxpayers expect to not only pay welfare for american citizens, but also to the governments of foreign nations?
so, end all business ties with other countries. shut down factories and "sweat shops" in all other countries and move them back to the US. 3rd step in isolationism. again, good idea in theory, but the US employs more people in foreign countries than does any other country. while sweat shops are usually bad, many of the people working there would be starving if they didn't.
this is not ending all business ties with other nations. do you know the meaning of the word "subsidizing"?
evolving is talking about free trade without economic or military intervention. he is in no way describing 'isolationism'. isolationism means ending trade and diplomacy with other nations.
a policy of free trade and military non-intervention is not isolationism.
Edited by mushmaster (04/17/03 02:37 PM)
|
flow
outlaw immortal
Registered: 11/20/02
Posts: 496
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Why the Anti-War Movement Was Right [Re: ]
#1467666 - 04/17/03 02:52 PM (21 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances
so removing troops from nations that are our allies that want us there doesn't qualify for this? many of our alliances basically require that we have troops in other countries.
Quote:
and other international political and economic relations
like overseas business ventures? i still don't get what your saying.
your definition of isolationism seems to be exactly what mine is.
Quote:
how many other nations in the world have so many troops stationed overseas?
per capita? Britain and France are probably pretty close.
Quote:
why should american taxpayers pay to send american troops to be stationed in foriegn nations?
to protect our allies. not bothering to protect our allies is isolationism.
Quote:
so what if other countries would like to have our money? should american taxpayers expect to not only pay welfare for american citizens, but also to the governments of foreign nations?
i agree, but you still seem to be making arguments for isolationism. i don't get how you don't see this as isolationist.
Quote:
a policy of free trade and military non-intervention is not isolationism.
but if military non-intervention results in the US ignoring the needs of allies to have US troops stationed there, then it is most definetely isolationism. Get it?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Why the Anti-War Movement Was Right [Re: flow]
#1467714 - 04/17/03 03:09 PM (21 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
and other international political and economic relations
like overseas business ventures? i still don't get what your saying.
if the american government by law ended all american business ventures overseas, this would be an isolationist policy. i am not advocating this. neither is evolving.
per capita? Britain and France are probably pretty close.
1. source?
2. if this is true, so what? most nations in the world restrict the use of their armed forces to national defense. they are not considered isolationist for doing so. are the US, britain, and france the only 'non-isolationist' nations in the world? is sending your military all around the world a requisite of being 'non-isolationist'?
i agree, but you still seem to be making arguments for isolationism. i don't get how you don't see this as isolationist.
how does refusing to send free money to other nations in the world make us isolationist?
so removing troops from nations that are our allies that want us there doesn't qualify for this? many of our alliances basically require that we have troops in other countries.
to protect our allies. not bothering to protect our allies is isolationism.
but if military non-intervention results in the US ignoring the needs of allies to have US troops stationed there, then it is most definetely isolationism. Get it?
not entering into alliances that require the US to station troops abroad in the first place would be a good idea. there are a few cases in which it is genuinely in the interest of the people of the united states to have our troops stationed abroad. it is only in these instances that we should ever enter into an agreement requiring us to send our military abroad. our armed forces are not mercenaries.
if the united states maintains free trade and diplomatic relations with other nations of the world, but refuses to send troops and aid, this does not make us isolationist.
|
pattern
multiplayer
Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,185
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Why the Anti-War Movement Was Right [Re: Evolving]
#1467814 - 04/17/03 03:44 PM (21 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Do you mean, stop having the U.S. government fund foreign military operations in the name of combating 'the war on drugs?'
Thats the one that pisses me off the most: imposing American anti-drug morality on the world.
--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
jimsuzo
Lenore
Learyfan
Angry Mycologist
pattern
Evolving