It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by seabag
Originally posted by mnmcandiez
We have no money. Understand?
Maybe we should drop Obamacare!
We're never too broke to be free and safe!
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
there is a middle gound betrween isolationism and "world police"
I would like to see the US move more towards the middle myself
Two weeks before the assassination of the Archduke, Wilson delivered an address on Flag Day. His remarks did not bode well for American abstention in the coming war. Asking what the flag would stand for in the future, Wilson replied: “for the just use of undisputed national power . . . for self-possession, for dignity, for the assertion of the right of one nation to serve the other nations of the world.” As President, he would “assert the rights of mankind wherever this flag is unfurled.”
What most decisively contributed to the involvement of the United States in the war was the assertion of a right to protect belligerent ships on which Americans saw fit to travel and the treatment of armed belligerent merchantmen as peaceful vessels. Both assumptions were contrary to reason and to settled law, and no other professed neutral advanced them.
This persistent refusal of President Wilson to see that there was a relation between the British irregularities and the German submarine warfare is probably the crux of the American involvement. the position taken is obviously unsustainable, for it is a neutral’s duty to hold the scales even and to favor neither side.
Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by seabag
I figured as much...
History has proven isolationism doesn’t work. Obviously nobody on ATS can make a cogent argument in defense of RP’s foreign policy.
Not a surprise to me…and its reflected in the primary election tally to date; 3 contests so far and RP hasn’t won one yet. There are only 4 players now and RP has no shot in Florida (I heard he was skipping Florida SHOCKING!)
America doesn’t trust this policy because history tells the truth…isolationism is a failed policy.
SO…those who blame the US for the aggression displayed by some nations in the Middle-East are partially correct. However, this aggression is not a result of US occupation, murder, or genocide as many ridiculously claim, but US is responsible for some of these monsters.
Originally posted by piotrburz
reply to post by AwakeinNM
But don't you think USA suggests that whole world is enemy, by building bases in about almost every country on this planet? Really,from where comes this need of having more than 900 bases throughout the world, as Ron Paul had said? Having so many bases is indication that we are ready to perform preemptive strike on everyone who is a close neighbor to our bases.
edit on 22-1-2012 by piotrburz because: (no reason given)edit on 22-1-2012 by piotrburz because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MidnightTide
I understand where OP is coming from, but what I want to know who is going to pay for all these wars?