"Citroen" <informationage@msn.com> wrote in
news:1167955419.077016.205580@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Deuteros wrote:
Can you even define 'our business' and where our nose 'doesn't
belong'?
We've never been isolationist. Not at least in the last 150 years.
Don't you feel the need to offer up some kind of support when you
make a claim that conflicts with most history books?
Almost every conflict since the Revolution has been the result of
desire to acquire more territory or because our government doesn't know
how to mind its own business.
Don't even pretend this supports your claim above. The fact that the
US has had a few wars doesn't mean we didn't have an isolationist
policy at other times. As for this statement itself, what about
1812, 1861 and 1917? Those are some big exceptions.
The War of 1812 was motivated by a desire to capture Canada. The Civil War
was an internal conflict so by definition that would be an exception. World
War I was entirely avoidable. There was no reason for us to get involved.
I guess in your mind it is none of our business if Europe gets overrun
by either Nazis or the Soviets. Others would disagree.
I have a big problem with a government deciding what wars its constituants
should be involved in.
You still have not defined "our own business" or where "our nose
doesn't belong".
Minding our own business includes, but isn't limited to, not sending our
troops overseas, stopping foreign aid, and not trying to tell foreign
governments how to run their own respective countries.
There's always been some sort government meddling that's backfired
and gotten into unnecessary wars.
That is because isolationism doesn't work. That was my point. If we
try it again it won't work any better than all the other times when
we tried it and it didn't work.
We've never tried it.
Why should we believe that all the history books got it wrong? They
say we tried isolationism. You say we didn't. Maybe you are smarter
then all the historians put together but if that were the case
shouldn't you have some kind of support for your position?
History books are put together with the goal of not offending anyone, not
necessarily with giving you the whole truth.
Your typical college history textbook is highly sanitized.
Actually, isolationism isn't really the right term. The
more correct term is non-interventionism. Isolationism implies that
one's country is totally cut off from the outside world.
Non-interventionism refers to a policy that avoids entangling alliances
with other nations and avoids all wars not related to direct
territorial self-defense.
Isolationism is non-interventionism combined with economic
protectionism. I would point you to some sources on American
Isolationism but you believe they got it wrong. So if you really meant
N.I. by itself does that mean you withdraw your claims about
isolationism?
Switzerland seems to be very successful at it.
We are not a tiny land locked nation in the middle of Europe who has
virtually no outside interests. Let me clarify.
Isolationism doesn't work for the United States.
We've never tried it, and the system we have now sure isn't working.
And I'm not talking about isolationism. I'm talking about
non-interventionism.
The history books seem to agree that we have tried it more recently than
150 years ago and it didn't work.
Look up the definition of isolationism and tell me when our country has
actually met that definition.
.
