|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
The good old Monroe Doctrine. A policy rooted in an era where we were just discovering the steam driven travel and had yet to fight the civil war. Totally applicable today. You can just copy and paste that right onto modern politics.
If someone isn’t cherry picking from US history, the numerous short comings of isolationists policies are well documented. Ignoring problems does not make them go away, especially for a nation’s who economy has always been dependent on international trade.
|
On March 12 2019 00:34 BerserkSword wrote:I'm not sure if you guys are being serious here... are you just ignoring the word "foreign"? It means that you dont involve yourself in shit that has nothing to do with you. If the affair has to do with you, you handle it, no matter where it is. Maybe this link explains it better https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html"American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere." "The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do.""
I mean I pointed out 6 wars with foreign governments before WW1...
Also, this idea of isolationism you linked is only for Europe. It ignores Asian.
As pointed out by others, every war in a global world can affect the US. Going ' we only get involved in wars that can affect the US means we can get involved in almost all of them '
|
On March 12 2019 00:45 Plansix wrote:
The good old Monroe Doctrine. A policy rooted in an era where we were just discovering the steam driven travel and had yet to fight the civil war. Totally applicable today. You can just copy and paste that right onto modern politics.
If someone isn’t cherry picking from US history, the numerous short comings of isolationists policies are well documented. Ignoring problems does not make them go away, especially for a nation’s who economy has always been dependent on international trade.
First of all, I didnt even bring up the Monroe Doctrine.
Second of all, the monroe doctrine didnt declare american isolationism. it declared that europe would not meddle in western hemisphere affairs.
Youre acting like international trade/economics didnt exist when america was isolationist, and youre acting like isolationism necessitates a lack of international trade
|
On March 12 2019 00:40 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2019 00:38 Gorsameth wrote:On March 12 2019 00:34 BerserkSword wrote:I'm not sure if you guys are being serious here... are you just ignoring the word "foreign"? It means that you dont involve yourself in shit that has nothing to do with you. If the affair has to do with you, you handle it, no matter where it is. Maybe this link explains it better https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html"American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere." "The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do."" Right, as major world economy (if not the leader) everyones affairs effect the US and the US cares about the affairs of everyone because thats how the global economy works which the US needs to feed off to maintain its position. Therefor US isolationism as practised by BerserkSword allows for Isolationism = World Police. Glad we had this discussion. thank you for confirming you are all just trolling a new poster
There is a <1% chance that you are a new poster, let's be honest here. Your first post on this forum is an immediate attack on other people. This is not rational behaviour for new users.
|
United States42008 Posts
On March 12 2019 00:34 BerserkSword wrote:I'm not sure if you guys are being serious here... are you just ignoring the word "foreign"? It means that you dont involve yourself in shit that has nothing to do with you. If the affair has to do with you, you handle it, no matter where it is. Maybe this link explains it better https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html"American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere." "The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do.""
The “authoritative” source you quoted specifically stated that isolationism involved peace.
Could you consider the possibility that it isn’t literally everyone else here, and also the definition you yourself cited, that is defining it wrong. We’d be able to get past this if you could stop using a definition of isolationism that nobody else uses.
Even if in your head you continue to believe that the Wikipedia article you cited to prove your point is completely wrong, just use a different word to mean “like isolationist but you invade a bunch of other countries”.
|
On March 12 2019 00:50 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2019 00:45 Plansix wrote:
The good old Monroe Doctrine. A policy rooted in an era where we were just discovering the steam driven travel and had yet to fight the civil war. Totally applicable today. You can just copy and paste that right onto modern politics.
If someone isn’t cherry picking from US history, the numerous short comings of isolationists policies are well documented. Ignoring problems does not make them go away, especially for a nation’s who economy has always been dependent on international trade. First of all, I didnt even bring up the Monroe Doctrine.Second of all, the monroe doctrine didnt declare american isolationism. it declared that europe would not meddle in western hemisphere affairs. Youre acting like international trade/economics didnt exist when america was isolationist, and youre acting like isolationism necessitates a lack of international trade
From your previous post
"The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do.""
|
So the problem with that definition of isolationism is that it’s subjective. Clearly Monroe did not include the Western Hemisphere in his definition of isolationism, but others in this day and age clearly would.
Back in the 1800s it was a relatively simple affair for the US to be “isolationist”; the only way it could be threatened was a land invasion through Mexico or Canada, or a naval invasion. The global threats were limited. Hence why Monroe excluded Nortg and South America from the policy.
Now, there are ICBMs, satellites, airplanes, cyberwarfare, etc. You’re never going to see an “invasion” like you’ve read about in history books ever again, because it’s too easy for everyone to blow up masses of stuff and everyone’s going to know about it before it happens. Threats disruptive enough to destabilize a country don’t require hundreds of thousands of militants anymore; they only require like 10-100 highly trained individuals with 1st-world country support. And they can spring up anywhere.
I have no doubt that if the Founding Fathers were alive today and had modern knowledge of the reality of tech and politics, they would want bases EVERYWHERE. Not to protect countries or establish world order or whatever, but instead to have a presence wherever threats may appear to the country so that they can respond to protect the American citizens.
|
United States42008 Posts
On March 12 2019 00:57 Ryzel wrote:
So the problem with that definition of isolationism is that it’s subjective. Clearly Monroe did not include the Western Hemisphere in his definition of isolationism, but others in this day and age clearly would.
Back in the 1800s it was a relatively simple affair for the US to be “isolationist”; the only way it could be threatened was a land invasion through Mexico or Canada, or a naval invasion. The global threats were limited. Hence why Monroe excluded Nortg and South America from the policy.
Now, there are ICBMs, satellites, airplanes, cyberwarfare, etc. You’re never going to see an “invasion” like you’ve read about in history books ever again, because it’s too easy for everyone to blow up masses of stuff and everyone’s going to know about it before it happens. Threats disruptive enough to destabilize a country don’t require hundreds of thousands of militants anymore; they only require like 10-100 highly trained individuals with 1st-world country support. And they can spring up anywhere.
I have no doubt that if the Founding Fathers were alive today and had modern knowledge of the reality of tech and politics, they would want bases EVERYWHERE. Not to protect countries or establish world order or whatever, but instead to have a presence wherever threats may appear to the country so that they can respond to protect the American citizens.
First war the US fought after independence, excluding killing the indigenous and tax revolts, was to secure trade routes against piracy. Control over shipping lanes has remained a global American policy goal to this day and is, as you identify, a clear continuity of the Founding Fathers foreign policy.
|
On March 12 2019 00:50 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2019 00:45 Plansix wrote:
The good old Monroe Doctrine. A policy rooted in an era where we were just discovering the steam driven travel and had yet to fight the civil war. Totally applicable today. You can just copy and paste that right onto modern politics.
If someone isn’t cherry picking from US history, the numerous short comings of isolationists policies are well documented. Ignoring problems does not make them go away, especially for a nation’s who economy has always been dependent on international trade. First of all, I didnt even bring up the Monroe Doctrine. Second of all, the monroe doctrine didnt declare american isolationism. it declared that europe would not meddle in western hemisphere affairs. Youre acting like international trade/economics didnt exist when america was isolationist, and youre acting like isolationism necessitates a lack of international trade
I as recovering US history teacher, I know what US isolationism is this political theory leans on things like Monroe Doctrine without understanding the context of that doctrine. Like that the US was a very different country in 1823. One that a decade earlier got its ass handed to it by Britain because a bunch of war hawks wanted to pick another fight with them. The entire theory after that was “Don’t pick fights with European nations, because we are a tiny ass country and they are super scary.”
And you brought it up, you goober. If you are going to discuss things like US isolationism in this thread, be prepared to discuss them as they were, not as you wish them to be. Modern isolationism in the US has some rotten roots because it became so popular during the 1930s.
|
where did I attack anyone?
On March 12 2019 00:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2019 00:34 BerserkSword wrote:I'm not sure if you guys are being serious here... are you just ignoring the word "foreign"? It means that you dont involve yourself in shit that has nothing to do with you. If the affair has to do with you, you handle it, no matter where it is. Maybe this link explains it better https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html"American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere." "The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do."" The “authoritative” source you quoted specifically stated that isolationism involved peace. Could you consider the possibility that it isn’t literally everyone else here, and also the definition you yourself cited, that is defining it wrong. We’d be able to get past this if you could stop using a definition of isolationism that nobody else uses. Even if in your head you continue to believe that the Wikipedia article you cited to prove your point is completely wrong, just use a different word to mean “like isolationist but you invade a bunch of other countries”.
You can't just ignore the rest of the sentence "by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities"
I'm not sure what youre trying to say here. It's widely agreed that America was isolationist when it was engaged in wars. The key point here is that the wars were with relation to the U.S....The U.S. simply didn't go to war because some foreign ally went to war. That is the crux of isolationism.
On March 12 2019 00:53 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2019 00:50 BerserkSword wrote:On March 12 2019 00:45 Plansix wrote:
The good old Monroe Doctrine. A policy rooted in an era where we were just discovering the steam driven travel and had yet to fight the civil war. Totally applicable today. You can just copy and paste that right onto modern politics.
If someone isn’t cherry picking from US history, the numerous short comings of isolationists policies are well documented. Ignoring problems does not make them go away, especially for a nation’s who economy has always been dependent on international trade. First of all, I didnt even bring up the Monroe Doctrine.Second of all, the monroe doctrine didnt declare american isolationism. it declared that europe would not meddle in western hemisphere affairs. Youre acting like international trade/economics didnt exist when america was isolationist, and youre acting like isolationism necessitates a lack of international trade From your previous post "The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do.""
I never used the monroe doctrine to "cherry pick" points in history or whatever that other guy said.
Re-read the excerpt. It mentioned the Monroe Doctrine, but ONLY to give context to the general practice of the time. The Monroe Doctrine did not espouse isolationism.
|
United States42008 Posts
On March 12 2019 01:03 BerserkSword wrote:where did I attack anyone? Show nested quote +On March 12 2019 00:52 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2019 00:34 BerserkSword wrote:I'm not sure if you guys are being serious here... are you just ignoring the word "foreign"? It means that you dont involve yourself in shit that has nothing to do with you. If the affair has to do with you, you handle it, no matter where it is. Maybe this link explains it better https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html"American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere." "The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do."" The “authoritative” source you quoted specifically stated that isolationism involved peace. Could you consider the possibility that it isn’t literally everyone else here, and also the definition you yourself cited, that is defining it wrong. We’d be able to get past this if you could stop using a definition of isolationism that nobody else uses. Even if in your head you continue to believe that the Wikipedia article you cited to prove your point is completely wrong, just use a different word to mean “like isolationist but you invade a bunch of other countries”. You can't just ignore the rest of the sentence "by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities" I'm not sure what youre trying to say here. It's widely agreed that America was isolationist when it was engaged in wars. The key point here is that the wars were with relation to the U.S....The U.S. simply didn't go to war because some foreign ally went to war. That is the crux of isolationism. Show nested quote +On March 12 2019 00:53 IyMoon wrote:On March 12 2019 00:50 BerserkSword wrote:On March 12 2019 00:45 Plansix wrote:
The good old Monroe Doctrine. A policy rooted in an era where we were just discovering the steam driven travel and had yet to fight the civil war. Totally applicable today. You can just copy and paste that right onto modern politics.
If someone isn’t cherry picking from US history, the numerous short comings of isolationists policies are well documented. Ignoring problems does not make them go away, especially for a nation’s who economy has always been dependent on international trade. First of all, I didnt even bring up the Monroe Doctrine.Second of all, the monroe doctrine didnt declare american isolationism. it declared that europe would not meddle in western hemisphere affairs. Youre acting like international trade/economics didnt exist when america was isolationist, and youre acting like isolationism necessitates a lack of international trade From your previous post "The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do."" I never used the monroe doctrine to "cherry pick" points in history or whatever that other guy said. Re-read the excerpt. It mentioned the Monroe Doctrine, but ONLY to give context to the general practice of the time. The Monroe Doctrine did not espouse isolationism.
Invading a foreign country is a foreign entanglement. Foreign is in the name. Civil wars are domestic entanglements. Foreign wars are foreign entanglements. I don’t know why you’re choosing this hill to die on. Why can’t you just concede that you can’t be simultaneously isolated from foreign countries and also at war with them?
|
On March 12 2019 01:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2019 01:03 BerserkSword wrote:where did I attack anyone? On March 12 2019 00:52 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2019 00:34 BerserkSword wrote:I'm not sure if you guys are being serious here... are you just ignoring the word "foreign"? It means that you dont involve yourself in shit that has nothing to do with you. If the affair has to do with you, you handle it, no matter where it is. Maybe this link explains it better https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html"American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere." "The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do."" The “authoritative” source you quoted specifically stated that isolationism involved peace. Could you consider the possibility that it isn’t literally everyone else here, and also the definition you yourself cited, that is defining it wrong. We’d be able to get past this if you could stop using a definition of isolationism that nobody else uses. Even if in your head you continue to believe that the Wikipedia article you cited to prove your point is completely wrong, just use a different word to mean “like isolationist but you invade a bunch of other countries”. You can't just ignore the rest of the sentence "by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities" I'm not sure what youre trying to say here. It's widely agreed that America was isolationist when it was engaged in wars. The key point here is that the wars were with relation to the U.S....The U.S. simply didn't go to war because some foreign ally went to war. That is the crux of isolationism. On March 12 2019 00:53 IyMoon wrote:On March 12 2019 00:50 BerserkSword wrote:On March 12 2019 00:45 Plansix wrote:
The good old Monroe Doctrine. A policy rooted in an era where we were just discovering the steam driven travel and had yet to fight the civil war. Totally applicable today. You can just copy and paste that right onto modern politics.
If someone isn’t cherry picking from US history, the numerous short comings of isolationists policies are well documented. Ignoring problems does not make them go away, especially for a nation’s who economy has always been dependent on international trade. First of all, I didnt even bring up the Monroe Doctrine.Second of all, the monroe doctrine didnt declare american isolationism. it declared that europe would not meddle in western hemisphere affairs. Youre acting like international trade/economics didnt exist when america was isolationist, and youre acting like isolationism necessitates a lack of international trade From your previous post "The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do."" I never used the monroe doctrine to "cherry pick" points in history or whatever that other guy said. Re-read the excerpt. It mentioned the Monroe Doctrine, but ONLY to give context to the general practice of the time. The Monroe Doctrine did not espouse isolationism. Invading a foreign country is a foreign entanglement. Foreign is in the name. Civil wars are domestic entanglements. Foreign wars are foreign entanglements. I don’t know why you’re choosing this hill to die on. Why can’t you just concede that you can’t be simultaneously isolated from foreign countries and also at war with them?
Because that's not what isolationism means?
Isolationism doesnt mean you dont interact with foreign countries. it means you dont involve yourself in foreign affairs...only affairs that have to do with you - affairs that can be with foreign countries
|
The only war i can imagine that is compatible with isolationism is a defensive war on your own territory. And the US has not been fighting one of those for a very long time.
As soon as you are fighting wars abroad, you are clearly involved in the affairs of other countries, which does not sound isolationist.
Maybe the thing that BerserkSword means is not isolationism but a policy which is very focused on the interests of the own country?
|
Sounds fair. Now name one country that has no impact whatsoever on US citizens.
|
United States42008 Posts
On March 12 2019 01:11 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2019 01:06 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2019 01:03 BerserkSword wrote:where did I attack anyone? On March 12 2019 00:52 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2019 00:34 BerserkSword wrote:I'm not sure if you guys are being serious here... are you just ignoring the word "foreign"? It means that you dont involve yourself in shit that has nothing to do with you. If the affair has to do with you, you handle it, no matter where it is. Maybe this link explains it better https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html"American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere." "The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do."" The “authoritative” source you quoted specifically stated that isolationism involved peace. Could you consider the possibility that it isn’t literally everyone else here, and also the definition you yourself cited, that is defining it wrong. We’d be able to get past this if you could stop using a definition of isolationism that nobody else uses. Even if in your head you continue to believe that the Wikipedia article you cited to prove your point is completely wrong, just use a different word to mean “like isolationist but you invade a bunch of other countries”. You can't just ignore the rest of the sentence "by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities" I'm not sure what youre trying to say here. It's widely agreed that America was isolationist when it was engaged in wars. The key point here is that the wars were with relation to the U.S....The U.S. simply didn't go to war because some foreign ally went to war. That is the crux of isolationism. On March 12 2019 00:53 IyMoon wrote:On March 12 2019 00:50 BerserkSword wrote:On March 12 2019 00:45 Plansix wrote:
The good old Monroe Doctrine. A policy rooted in an era where we were just discovering the steam driven travel and had yet to fight the civil war. Totally applicable today. You can just copy and paste that right onto modern politics.
If someone isn’t cherry picking from US history, the numerous short comings of isolationists policies are well documented. Ignoring problems does not make them go away, especially for a nation’s who economy has always been dependent on international trade. First of all, I didnt even bring up the Monroe Doctrine.Second of all, the monroe doctrine didnt declare american isolationism. it declared that europe would not meddle in western hemisphere affairs. Youre acting like international trade/economics didnt exist when america was isolationist, and youre acting like isolationism necessitates a lack of international trade From your previous post "The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do."" I never used the monroe doctrine to "cherry pick" points in history or whatever that other guy said. Re-read the excerpt. It mentioned the Monroe Doctrine, but ONLY to give context to the general practice of the time. The Monroe Doctrine did not espouse isolationism. Invading a foreign country is a foreign entanglement. Foreign is in the name. Civil wars are domestic entanglements. Foreign wars are foreign entanglements. I don’t know why you’re choosing this hill to die on. Why can’t you just concede that you can’t be simultaneously isolated from foreign countries and also at war with them? Because that's not what isolationism means?
But only according to your definition. The Wikipedia article you cited agrees with every other poster here. We’re having a language problem because we cannot agree on common terms. It would help if you would use the same meanings as everyone else when you use words. Even if you believe your definition is right and that it’s the rest of the world who are wrong, being right is not helpful to you if you cannot communicate with us. Use a different word or use the definition that is commonly accepted.
|
United States42008 Posts
On March 12 2019 01:13 Simberto wrote:
The only war i can imagine that is compatible with isolationism is a defensive war on your own territory. And the US has not been fighting one of those for a very long time.
As soon as you are fighting wars abroad, you are clearly involved in the affairs of other countries, which does not sound isolationist.
Maybe the thing that BerserkSword means is not isolationism but a policy which is very focused on the interests of the own country?
The issue being that current US global policy is in the interests of the US. The US didn’t become the global hegemon after WW2 to do everyone else a favour. American bases in Japan etc serve American interests. That would all fall under his definition of isolationism.
|
On March 12 2019 01:11 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2019 01:06 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2019 01:03 BerserkSword wrote:where did I attack anyone? On March 12 2019 00:52 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2019 00:34 BerserkSword wrote:I'm not sure if you guys are being serious here... are you just ignoring the word "foreign"? It means that you dont involve yourself in shit that has nothing to do with you. If the affair has to do with you, you handle it, no matter where it is. Maybe this link explains it better https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html"American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere." "The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do."" The “authoritative” source you quoted specifically stated that isolationism involved peace. Could you consider the possibility that it isn’t literally everyone else here, and also the definition you yourself cited, that is defining it wrong. We’d be able to get past this if you could stop using a definition of isolationism that nobody else uses. Even if in your head you continue to believe that the Wikipedia article you cited to prove your point is completely wrong, just use a different word to mean “like isolationist but you invade a bunch of other countries”. You can't just ignore the rest of the sentence "by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities" I'm not sure what youre trying to say here. It's widely agreed that America was isolationist when it was engaged in wars. The key point here is that the wars were with relation to the U.S....The U.S. simply didn't go to war because some foreign ally went to war. That is the crux of isolationism. On March 12 2019 00:53 IyMoon wrote:On March 12 2019 00:50 BerserkSword wrote:On March 12 2019 00:45 Plansix wrote:
The good old Monroe Doctrine. A policy rooted in an era where we were just discovering the steam driven travel and had yet to fight the civil war. Totally applicable today. You can just copy and paste that right onto modern politics.
If someone isn’t cherry picking from US history, the numerous short comings of isolationists policies are well documented. Ignoring problems does not make them go away, especially for a nation’s who economy has always been dependent on international trade. First of all, I didnt even bring up the Monroe Doctrine.Second of all, the monroe doctrine didnt declare american isolationism. it declared that europe would not meddle in western hemisphere affairs. Youre acting like international trade/economics didnt exist when america was isolationist, and youre acting like isolationism necessitates a lack of international trade From your previous post "The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do."" I never used the monroe doctrine to "cherry pick" points in history or whatever that other guy said. Re-read the excerpt. It mentioned the Monroe Doctrine, but ONLY to give context to the general practice of the time. The Monroe Doctrine did not espouse isolationism. Invading a foreign country is a foreign entanglement. Foreign is in the name. Civil wars are domestic entanglements. Foreign wars are foreign entanglements. I don’t know why you’re choosing this hill to die on. Why can’t you just concede that you can’t be simultaneously isolated from foreign countries and also at war with them? Because that's not what isolationism means? Isolationism doesnt mean you dont interact with foreign countries. it means you dont involve yourself in foreign affairs...only affairs that have to do with you - affairs that can be with foreign countries Again, globalisation and the interconnected world economy means that every affair is an American affair because it will affect the market that America trades in.
As for your The U.S. simply didn't go to war because some foreign ally went to war. That is the crux of isolationism. I wonder what your talking of since America has been dragging its allies into wars, and not the other way around. You can make a case for Libya and that's it?
|
United States42008 Posts
On March 12 2019 01:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2019 01:11 BerserkSword wrote:On March 12 2019 01:06 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2019 01:03 BerserkSword wrote:where did I attack anyone? On March 12 2019 00:52 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2019 00:34 BerserkSword wrote:I'm not sure if you guys are being serious here... are you just ignoring the word "foreign"? It means that you dont involve yourself in shit that has nothing to do with you. If the affair has to do with you, you handle it, no matter where it is. Maybe this link explains it better https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html"American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere." "The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do."" The “authoritative” source you quoted specifically stated that isolationism involved peace. Could you consider the possibility that it isn’t literally everyone else here, and also the definition you yourself cited, that is defining it wrong. We’d be able to get past this if you could stop using a definition of isolationism that nobody else uses. Even if in your head you continue to believe that the Wikipedia article you cited to prove your point is completely wrong, just use a different word to mean “like isolationist but you invade a bunch of other countries”. You can't just ignore the rest of the sentence "by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities" I'm not sure what youre trying to say here. It's widely agreed that America was isolationist when it was engaged in wars. The key point here is that the wars were with relation to the U.S....The U.S. simply didn't go to war because some foreign ally went to war. That is the crux of isolationism. On March 12 2019 00:53 IyMoon wrote:On March 12 2019 00:50 BerserkSword wrote:On March 12 2019 00:45 Plansix wrote:
The good old Monroe Doctrine. A policy rooted in an era where we were just discovering the steam driven travel and had yet to fight the civil war. Totally applicable today. You can just copy and paste that right onto modern politics.
If someone isn’t cherry picking from US history, the numerous short comings of isolationists policies are well documented. Ignoring problems does not make them go away, especially for a nation’s who economy has always been dependent on international trade. First of all, I didnt even bring up the Monroe Doctrine.Second of all, the monroe doctrine didnt declare american isolationism. it declared that europe would not meddle in western hemisphere affairs. Youre acting like international trade/economics didnt exist when america was isolationist, and youre acting like isolationism necessitates a lack of international trade From your previous post "The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do."" I never used the monroe doctrine to "cherry pick" points in history or whatever that other guy said. Re-read the excerpt. It mentioned the Monroe Doctrine, but ONLY to give context to the general practice of the time. The Monroe Doctrine did not espouse isolationism. Invading a foreign country is a foreign entanglement. Foreign is in the name. Civil wars are domestic entanglements. Foreign wars are foreign entanglements. I don’t know why you’re choosing this hill to die on. Why can’t you just concede that you can’t be simultaneously isolated from foreign countries and also at war with them? Because that's not what isolationism means? Isolationism doesnt mean you dont interact with foreign countries. it means you dont involve yourself in foreign affairs...only affairs that have to do with you - affairs that can be with foreign countries Again, globalisation and the interconnected world economy means that every affair is an American affair because it will affect the market that America trades in. As for your Show nested quote +The U.S. simply didn't go to war because some foreign ally went to war. That is the crux of isolationism. I wonder what your talking of since America has been dragging its allies into wars, and not the other way around. You can make a case for Libya and that's it?
To add to your point, NATO has been invoked exactly once and that was for Afghanistan.
|
When you get into modern isolationism, it is only about fighting wars that "benefit" America and not getting involved in whatever conflict of the moment exists. So in the 1940s, its was the America First Committee not wanting to become involved in WW2 because there was a home grown Nazi movement making waves in the US.
+ Show Spoiler +
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323/when-nazis-took-manhattan
The modern concept of isolationism has not escapes the roots of rejecting refugees and "securing the borders" against some mythical invader does not exist. The only thing that has changed in the US and its relationship to other nations. Now isolationism takes the shape of pulling troops out of South Korea because we don't want to be involved with the Korean conflict any longer. As if doing so will magically make the conflict go away, as we trade with China, Japan and South Korea. Ignore the crisis in Venezuela and hope all the other nations around it figure out what to do, all while trading with those countries. It is a political theory built on the desire for the simplistic solution, that the problem is someone else's problem. Which means it can be very effective in the short term, but doesn't last since the problems don't go away.
|
@BSword I don't think anyone is trying to gang up on you based on your post count, I think what you've got here is a widespread disagreement with your point (correct me if I'm wrong) that the US should/could return to a policy of isolationism.
While there is some truth to the points you make regarding what the US foreign policy was in the past (although I would argue with you on some of the details/finer points), It's simply not possible to go back to that anymore, for reasons including but not limited to other posters have cited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2019/02/20/film-still-1-35d4292651560990649ca245739a3988f3bdc419-s800-c85.png)
