I prefer withdrawing from the world. My younger brothers are entering the military. I would like them not to die for Ukraine or in the Middle East. Let the world burn and solve their own problems. If that means Russia eating Eastern Europe, so be it.

(03-25-2016 04:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 04:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I don't. He's weak on immigration, weak on the military, supports decriminalizing all drugs regardless of the health hazards they pose, and would further destabilize an already shaky world . He would be just as disastrous as either one of the leftists.

Yeah...president Trump and his nuclear possibilities and president Cruz with his carpet bombing would SO stabilize the world.

Isolationism worked so well with WWI and WWII didn't it?

The people who cry and moan about us being "world police" can't see the big picture. The last thing we want is for the various nations of Europe to have huge armed forces because every time that has happened in history there has been a tyrant that rises and a major war that usually ends up involving us whether we want to be involved or not. Napoleon rises to power in France and events lead to the War of 1812. Nothing needs to be said about WWI and WWII. The absolute last thing we want is a Europe re-armed much further than what it already is.

Never mind that the things you mention were predominately isolated European conflicts that throughout history..just happen..and get resolved on their own. WWI was also a European conflict until we decided to get into it in 1917. There were serious peace proposals on the table at the time we entered the war that were quelched. There are plenty of scholars that agree that our entry into the war was a mistake that cost lives in WWI and probably set the stage for the things that caused WWII. In a (controversial and disputed) interview by the New York Enquirer in 1936 with Winston Churchill...He reportedly said we should never have entered the war. He later disavowed the statements and was sued for libel by the NYE. The case never got a day in court because of the outbreak of WWII. It is now a subject for speculation. The journalist however had an impeccable reputation and many in the journalist community sided with his reporting.

Im not in support of pure isolationism. I think we should be engaged economically and diplomatically with everyone....but...I submit there is PLENTY of evidence that our interventionism has caused problems. To say that isolationism is inherently dangerous is hyperbolic IMO. I think it can be...but...I think the reverse is also dangerous.

Ah, so we just got involved in WWI for the hell of it? It didn't have anything to do with the fact that the Germans were sinking our merchant ships in the Atlantic, were trying to incite Mexico into war with the US several different times, and had an operative cause explosions at Mare Island Naval Shipyard and the Black Tom Depot. Nah, we did it for the imperialistic aspects of things.

You brought up imperialism...not me. You also said "just for the hell of it"..not me. Im aware of the issues you mention and don't discount them.

(03-24-2016 01:01 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Where does he need to be to get into the debates? 10%?

15 percent

(03-26-2016 06:45 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I prefer withdrawing from the world. My younger brothers are entering the military. I would like them not to die for Ukraine or in the Middle East. Let the world burn and solve their own problems. If that means Russia eating Eastern Europe, so be it.

costa is my withdrawal....

your gen is so screwed....

(03-26-2016 06:45 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I prefer withdrawing from the world. My younger brothers are entering the military. I would like them not to die for Ukraine or in the Middle East. Let the world burn and solve their own problems. If that means Russia eating Eastern Europe, so be it.

My son is in the military and thinks we should be more involved than we already are because the cost of prevention is always less than the cost of the cure.

(03-25-2016 04:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:09 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 02:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 09:10 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  I believe a President Gary Johnson would be an honorable and fine representative of the United States.

With proper media coverage and prime-time debate stage access, I think he'd get a huge slice of the voter pie (ironically, the stereotypical "nutty" Libertarian Party would likely do best among moderates in this election). But it's the real world and he'll never get that opportunity.

I don't. He's weak on immigration, weak on the military, supports decriminalizing all drugs regardless of the health hazards they pose, and would further destabilize an already shaky world . He would be just as disastrous as either one of the leftists.

Yeah...president Trump and his nuclear possibilities and president Cruz with his carpet bombing would SO stabilize the world.

Isolationism worked so well with WWI and WWII didn't it?

The people who cry and moan about us being "world police" can't see the big picture. The last thing we want is for the various nations of Europe to have huge armed forces because every time that has happened in history there has been a tyrant that rises and a major war that usually ends up involving us whether we want to be involved or not. Napoleon rises to power in France and events lead to the War of 1812. Nothing needs to be said about WWI and WWII. The absolute last thing we want is a Europe re-armed much further than what it already is.

Never mind that the things you mention were predominately isolated European conflicts that throughout history..just happen..and get resolved on their own. WWI was also a European conflict until we decided to get into it in 1917. There were serious peace proposals on the table at the time we entered the war that were quelched. There are plenty of scholars that agree that our entry into the war was a mistake that cost lives in WWI and probably set the stage for the things that caused WWII. In a (controversial and disputed) interview by the New York Enquirer in 1936 with Winston Churchill...He reportedly said we should never have entered the war. He later disavowed the statements and was sued for libel by the NYE. The case never got a day in court because of the outbreak of WWII. It is now a subject for speculation. The journalist however had an impeccable reputation and many in the journalist community sided with his reporting.

Im not in support of pure isolationism. I think we should be engaged economically and diplomatically with everyone....but...I submit there is PLENTY of evidence that our interventionism has caused problems. To say that isolationism is inherently dangerous is hyperbolic IMO. I think it can be...but...I think the reverse is also dangerous.

And what brilliant blogger do you get your history from? Donald Trump's cousin?

(03-26-2016 10:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-26-2016 06:45 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I prefer withdrawing from the world. My younger brothers are entering the military. I would like them not to die for Ukraine or in the Middle East. Let the world burn and solve their own problems. If that means Russia eating Eastern Europe, so be it.

My son is in the military and thinks we should be more involved than we already are because the cost of prevention is always less than the cost of the cure.

I know someone who did 1 tour in Afghanistan and 3 in Iraq. If we did it right the first time it wouldn't be so much time there. Now we are slowly going back because Obama thought he could just leave and everything would be hunky dory.

Breaking a treaty is a congressional decision. I welcome the debate, but as of now, we are obligated to defend Eastern Europe. So neither Trump nor Gary Johnson makes that decision anyway, making much of this discussion moot.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(03-26-2016 11:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-26-2016 10:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-26-2016 06:45 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I prefer withdrawing from the world. My younger brothers are entering the military. I would like them not to die for Ukraine or in the Middle East. Let the world burn and solve their own problems. If that means Russia eating Eastern Europe, so be it.

My son is in the military and thinks we should be more involved than we already are because the cost of prevention is always less than the cost of the cure.

I know someone who did 1 tour in Afghanistan and 3 in Iraq. If we did it right the first time it wouldn't be so much time there. Now we are slowly going back because Obama thought he could just leave and everything would be hunky dory.

Do it right, or don't do it at all. Never fight a war that you don't intend to win. We've broken that rule over and over, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so far we are 0-for-however-many. If it's worth going in at all, then it's worth going in full bore, with overwhelming force, kill everybody that needs killing, blow up everything that needs blowing up, damn the consequences, and get the hell out. If it's not worth taking that approach, then the military solution should be off the table--except it should always be there as a backup, otherwise negotiations mean nothing (see Iran, for example).