What would happen if America practiced Isolationism?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Supposedly he took harder classes than Gore too....

'supposedly'? Is this like his great military career as a 'fighter pilot' (getting in with the lowest allowable score only by his father's influence, passing other more qualified applicants to get into flight school)? When in fact he was absent from his National Guard duty for 6 months (still he refuses to give an explanation), and he had been suspended from flight duty and not allowed to fly for the last 2 years that he supposedly served in the National Guard. He's looking fit for duty here.

Not to mention his DWI conviction (1976), and his frequent drug and alcohol abuse when he was younger. Funny how a daddy in the CIA can help to get you out of trouble. (At least Al Gore admitted to smoking pot in college.)

And before you say anything at all, JD. Al Gore served in Vietnam as an Army journalist, most likely because his father was a senator and had influence.

And as for comparing education, we're talking apples and oranges here. G-dubya went to Harvard (History major) and Yale (got an MBA). He was an avid 'party boy', and in Texas he had a reputation as a loud, obnoxious and agressive drunk and often snorted a line of coke right in the bar in the presence of everyone.

Al Gore went to Harvard a three-sport letterman with high grades and top-percentile test scores.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Khamûl
Does the president's intelligence really have anything to do with what would happen if America became an isolationist country?

errrr... yeah... we're spamming. Sorry.

[jerseydevil]

Great picture Ruinel. Too bad that looks almost like anyone in college. You must live under as rock if you think Bush was any different in college than 60% of guys AND girls. Hell princeton even has the nude olympics every first snow fall. Man someone had better tell them - tehy'll never be President if they drink and partake in that event. The Nude Olympics have been cut back because of the public sex that was going on though.

By the way - it's great that you finally admitted that Gore got special treatment. Yesterday you seemed to even forget that Gore's father was a livelong Senator.

[Lizra]

I posted this in the proud American thread, getting a little mixed up, I am!


Anyway, don't American politicians and military leaders believe by getting more involved in world's "hotspots", they are sort of "heading trouble off at the pass"? A type of Cold War mentality, I guess. Human beings really base a lot of importance on "reactions"! ....If we do this, they'll do that, he did this so I'll do that, if I do this they might think that.....it's such a huge chain reaction now that world communications are fast and global. In the 1800's, we could be isolationist (military wise) easy enough, cause we really didn't know what was going on! Now...it IS possible to get to much information, too soon...and some of it might not be correct! Terrorism and events such as 9/11 have only made this knee-jerk type of reaction more popular, and I can certainly understand it. I'd much rather avoid trouble at the start, than deal with a huge horrible monster later....sort of a hindsight thing , possibly developed after the Nazi horror that was allowed to grow far too huge. I don't know....the world's too complicated.....technology it going to do us in, I hope it can rescue us too....I'm glad my life's more than half over sometimes....mumble, mumble....


__________________

[jerseydevil]

Yes - Lizra - I agree. The past should teach us one thing - especially the history of Hitler - it is far better to do something before the problem gets out of hand - than to wait.

People may disagree with Iraq - but we've been doing the same thing in the Middle East over and over again - and nothing has changed. Hussein had biological and chemical weapons and had shown he wasn't afraid to use them. It was only a matter of time before he would get in the mood again to flex his muscles. His whole goal - which wasn't a secret - was to control the Middle East.

I never expected Iraq to be easy after the war - I sort of thought we would get more help from the Iraqis though. They don't want us around their mosques - but then when an arab bomber kills 180 some odd people - they blame us for not providing enough protection. I think we should hand more power over to the Iraqi Council - see if they can get things under control and get the Iraqi people mobilized into helping us.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil, who puts words in my mouth
Yesterday you seemed to even forget that Gore's father was a livelong Senator.

ACK!! WHAT?! I never said he wasn't!

Originally posted by jerseydevil
... I think we should hand more power over to the Iraqi Council - see if they can get things under control and get the Iraqi people mobilized into helping us.

On this, we agree.

[nessa]

Hi All!

If America practised isolationism? The rest of the world could get on with their lives the way they have done for the preceding thousands of years prior to the 'discovery' of the good old US of A! And without the insidious meddling! Hopefully, certain leaders such as Tony Blair ( and his predecesors), would then not feel the need to kowtow in such an embarrassing fashion.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by nessa
Hi All!

If America practised isolationism? The rest of the world could get on with their lives the way they have done for the preceding thousands of years prior to the 'discovery' of the good old US of A! And without the insidious meddling! Hopefully, certain leaders such as Tony Blair ( and his predecesors), would then not feel the need to kowtow in such an embarrassing fashion.

Exactly the ungrateful attitude of why Americans want to pull out of the UN and stop worrying about the rest of the wrold. Let Europe and all the other countries worry about Israel and the Palestians and North Korea and South Korea. When problems occur with Bosnia and stuff - don't call us up - Europe should just handle it like the US had wanted them to initially..

[jerseydevil]

Oh - and welcome to Entmoot.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Pretty feisty for a newbie.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Pretty feisty for a newbie.

I thought so too - and was going to mention that. Most newbies don't throw themselves right into the fire of political discussions with their second post.

[GrayMouser]

The United States on Tuesday sneered at plans by four European countries to create an autonomous European military command headquarters near Brussels separate from NATO, referring to the idea's proponents as "chocolate makers."
In unusually blunt language that drew surprised gasps from reporters, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher scoffed at Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg for continuing to support the proposal that they first introduced at a mini-summit in April.

He described the April meeting as one between "four countries that got together and had a little bitty summit" and then referred to them collectively as "the chocolate makers."

Nuff said.

http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030902194053.6643y9yk.html

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Nuff said.

http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030902194053.6643y9yk.html

That attitude comes from our frustration with Europe anymore. Just like the little summit between France, Germany and Russia during the iraq situation. By the way - France, Germany and Belgium are all a part of the collection of European countries which had wanted to build a second "world power" as Chirac had declare prior to the Iraq war..

By the way - I'm sure the only reporters who gasped - were the European reporters. We not ignorant to what France and Germany want to do - set up a second world power. Blair even mentioned it to Parliament and said that it would throw European and US relations into a tail spin if they succeeded.

[GrayMouser]

As for American troops abroad, it's ridiculous to have them stationed in Germany more than ten years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, if their purpose is to protect or reassure Europe.

Same thing with Korea- South Korea has more than double the population of North Korea, and forty times the GDP- they should be able to look out for themselves.

Bosnia was the European's big chance to stand up for themselves, but they flinched.

Since it is the Europeans and others (especially Canada) who are so eager for a new multilateral global village, (which I agree with) they're going to have to start putting some money where their mouth is in terms of military force.

Though please note, Britain ran its own peacekeepers in Sierra Leone, as the French are doing now in the Ivory Coast.

OTOH, I don't think American forces are stationed abroad purely as acts of benevolent altruism- the US gov't decides for what it sees as America's own good reasons to put them there.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That attitude comes from our frustration with Europe anymore. Just like the little summit between France, Germany and Russia during the iraq situation. By the way - France, Germany and Belgium are all a part of the collection of European countries which had wanted to build a second "world power" as Chirac had declare prior to the Iraq war..

By the way - I'm sure the only reporters who gasped - were the European reporters. We not ignorant to what France and Germany want to do - set up a second world power. Blair even mentioned it to Parliament and said that it would throw European and US relations into a tail spin if they succeeded.

Everyone knows the US is opposed to the European defence force.
But when you've just come from pushing for a UN resolution backing more outside troops to Iraq, and next month you've got a donor's conference coming up where you're going to be hitting these same guys for major contributions, the wording is not very diplomatique, n'est-ce pas?

I mean, good Lord, this is the State Department.
I wonder what Colin thought when he heard that one?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
As for American troops abroad, it's ridiculous to have them stationed in Germany more than ten years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, if their purpose is to protect or reassure Europe.

I agree. I think we should pull out of Germany. Schroeder clearly doesn't want us there - even though the towns our troops are located in say that it would devistate their economies. Germany has been made whole again, the Berlin Wall has come down and the Soviet Union has collapsed. if Germany tries world domination again - it won't take too much to get our planes, tanks and military back over there (not that I think that will happen).

Same thing with Korea- South Korea has more than double the population of North Korea, and forty times the GDP- they should be able to look out for themselves.

South Korea had anti-American marches a couple of years ago. They president was voted in on getting our troops out. North Korea then started making threats and launching missiles. Needless to say - South Korea has now - for the most part - changed it's tune on our troops being there.
Bosnia was the European's big chance to stand up for themselves, but they flinched.

Since it is the Europeans and others (especially Canada) who are so eager for a new multilateral global village, (which I agree with) they're going to have to start putting some money where their mouth is in terms of military force.

Yeah - but in order to do that they have to either raise taxes even more - or cut some of the precious social programs. They'll have to get the money from somewhere - and they don't want to. They'd rather sit back and complain about the US.

By the way - that will cause great division between America and Europe or possibly a new cold war - if Europe takes on the attitude that France and Germany had back in March toward the United States. Personally - right now - I and many Americans do not trust France or Germany and their ultimate goals for the EU. Chirac said too much in his angry outbursts against America back in March to just rest easy.

Though please note, Britain ran its own peacekeepers in Sierra Leone, as the French are doing now in the Ivory Coast.

Yes - they did. But of course hasn't done a great job in the Ivory Coast. If it was us in there - the world would be saying that it was "another Vietnam".

OTOH, I don't think American forces are stationed abroad purely as acts of benevolent altruism- the US gov't decides for what it sees as America's own good reasons to put them there.

Nor can you expect them to be around the world solely for benevolent altruism. But it was OUR soldiers who got dragged through the streets of Somalia. That is why Clinton didn't send troops to Rwanda - where the world was outraged by us. But you - nothing prevented the UN from going in there with the help of Europe. So why didn't Europe go in to stop the bloodshed in Africa? Why did everyone only point the finger at America?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Nuff said.

http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030902194053.6643y9yk.html

How embarrassing!!! How could the State Dept be so rude and undiplomatic!?

As for American troops abroad, it's ridiculous to have them stationed in Germany more than ten years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, if their purpose is to protect or reassure Europe.

Same thing with Korea- South Korea has more than double the population of North Korea, and forty times the GDP- they should be able to look out for themselves.

Bosnia was the European's big chance to stand up for themselves, but they flinched.

Since it is the Europeans and others (especially Canada) who are so eager for a new multilateral global village, (which I agree with) they're going to have to start putting some money where their mouth is in terms of military force.

I completely agree with you. Let the world fend for themselves. Why should the US tax payers pay for the protection of the world? Let Europe handle their own afairs. Let Asia handle theirs.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Everyone knows the US is opposed to the European defence force.
But when you've just come from pushing for a UN resolution backing more outside troops to Iraq, and next month you've got a donor's conference coming up where you're going to be hitting these same guys for major contributions, the wording is not very diplomatique, n'est-ce pas?

I mean, good Lord, this is the State Department.
I wonder what Colin thought when he heard that one?

Well the only permanent members of the Security Council on that fab four list is France. And even so - those four countries only make up a small part of the UN.

Also - Germany and France have always pretty much said they want no part in Iraq - except with strings attached. Strings the US is not willing to allow. So I really don't know what making fun of their summit has to do with the UN. yeah - it was probably in poor taste. I didn't actually hear what was said - but I do support the harder stand we are taking with Europe - just like I supported it back in March.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
How embarrassing!!! How could the State Dept be so rude and undiplomatic!?

i don't find it anymore embarrassing than what Chirac said repeatedly about us back in march - the thing is - Europeans cheered him on. So why should we be embarrassed by those statements? It's about time we stopped putting up with the crap from the European politicians.

By the way - the end of the article partially supports my concern to the plans of these four countries...

The idea was born amid great European opposition to the US-led war against Iraq particularly from the four nations who proposed it.

Three of the four countries behind the Brussels HQ plans sparked an unprecedented crisis in NATO in the run-up to the Iraq war: Belgium, France and Germany blocked the alliance from deploying military support in Turkey.

Their April 29 summit was seen by critics as a further provocation aimed at the United States, which has long dominated the 19-member Brussels-based North Atlantic alliance.

France has made it perfectly clear that it plans to go head to head with the US and it's a crisis waiting to happen.

[Radagast]

Originally posted by Ruinel
How embarrassing!!! How could the State Dept be so rude and undiplomatic!?

.

Precisely. The State Department is a government agency- name calling is simply just not done. It's bad form- on both sides.