How did we provoke Germany?Have you ever heard of the treaty of versailles?It even managed to bring Hitler to power.
We embargoed Japan from the material it needed to continue thier war with China.
And as far as liberating people how would you explain the taking down of the democratic government of Iran and installing the Shah liberation since he was no better than Saddom Hussain?This is the kind of liberation our government is now up to.
During the 20th century, Americans came to liberate Europe twice, during world wars started by Europeans. Half a million Americans died during those wars. During and after WW2, the U.S. provided huge aid programs to Europe (the Lend-Lease program and the Marshall Plan), with the U.K. being the only country to repay anything.
After WW2, a new threat to Europe emerged: a totalitarian, aggressive, imperialist Soviet Union. The U.S. shielded Western Europe, as well as many other countries, from the Soviet military. It saved South Korea from Kim Il-sung and continues to protect the ROK from the genocidal Pyongyang regime.
The U.S. has liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban and Iraq from Saddam Hussein, a dictator who murdered a million of his own people. It has also helped dozens of nations stricken by economic crises or natural disasters, including the Indonesians, the Pakistanis, the Russians, the Mexicans, and the South Koreans.
The U.S. is the country which ended the genocide in the Balkans -- genocide about which Europe was utterly unable to do anything.
As I said previously, I feel you rewrote history a bit. So first let us get a couple things out of the way. We should define two terms, "Isolationism" and "Non Intervention"
Isolationism is defined as
the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.
Non Interventionism is defined as
abstention by a nation from interference in the affairs of other nations or in those of its own political subdivisions.
You begin by making a case that the US practiced a policy of Isolationism when in fact that is not true at all. For a country to be "isolationist" it would not even be trading with other Countries and the US has been trading since it's birth.
Isolationism refers to America's longstanding reluctance to become involved in European alliances and wars. Isolationists held the view that America's perspective on the world was different from that of European societies and that America could advance the cause of freedom and democracy by means other than war.
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.
Germany's unfettered submarine warfare against American ships during World War I provoked the U.S. into abandoning the neutrality it had upheld for so many years. The country's resultant participation in World War I against the Central Powers marked its first major departure from isolationist policy.
The year 1940 signaled a final turning point for isolationism. German military successes in Europe and the Battle of Britain prompted nationwide American rethinking about its posture toward the war. If Germany and Italy established hegemony in Europe and Africa, and Japan swept East Asia, many believed that the Western Hemisphere might be next. Even if America managed to repel invasions, its way of life might wither if it were forced to become a garrison state. By the autumn of 1940, many Americans believed it was necessary to help defeat the Axis — even if it meant open hostilities.
Fact is, the majority of your post is all about an Isolationist result of Foreign Policy and Ron Paul believes in a policy of Non Intervention. We have established that these are two completely separate things and that really negates every point you have made. I do agree that isolationism does not work, but Ron Paul is not suggesting Isolating the US from the world stage.
Originally posted by Evil_Santa
Originally posted by nenothtu
What are you considering to be "blowback", and why?
Well 9/11 is a recent event of Blowback, but there's differences in opinion on if it really was the cause or not. But let's go back further, the Iran embassy hostage situation, Iraq, World Trade Center bombings, Al-Queida, etc.
No, communication and transportation are tools. Humans facilitate war, and use these tools for their ends, just like humans can facilitate trade with the same tools.
Why should america intervene in someone else's fight?
It's not so much a one-world government of a ruling elite/body, but a one-world idea that people unite under -- humanity. Got a problem with being humane to others? There can still be separate governing bodies that govern under the same idea(s), yes?
But there is something we can all agree upon, we're all human, and Maslo's heirachy of needs has a pretty good foundation on what 99% of us need to be content in life. I'd say there's a good place to start from.
You're right, proper logistics provides the ability but you seem to have an issue with reading comprehension because the next paragraph outlined the logistics of how-to provide a relatively (within 72 hours) instant ability to react. I'll leave that paragraph in this reply and bold the sentence so your attention is able to focus on it this time.
As per your whole "if we bring everyone home then when SHTF somewhere we'll be that much later to the party". The Navy would really be the only branch of the service that needs to be in international waters to be ready for this type of scenario. The rest of the military could be deployed anywhere in the world within 72 hours if the proper protocols were developed and practiced to achieve that goal.
Impossible without FOB's and staging areas. Even with them, you can only get a very small force in play in a 72 hour time frame. That small force can be wiped from the face of the earth in quite a lot less time than the 72 hours it took to get it there with no possibility for reinforcement, backup, or supply. This is why we always see "build-ups" prior to any sort of large scale action. It takes more than 72 hours to get a naval contingent on the scene unless they are already in the vicinity - i.e. were already expecting trouble there.
So you agree with me that the Navy should remain in international waters. Cool.
Blocking "the growing pains of a global culture" is not detrimental to humanity. Diversity enhances the chance that humanity will survive. Who do you propose runs this "global culture"? How will you feel when it is co-opted by the Next Great Fascist regime, and the central control for the entire world is already in place, courtesy of the Globalist Utopia Dreamers Society (Inc,)?
Information is the key to preventing this from happening.
Humans are quite capable of taking care of theirselves and governing theirselves. With modern-day tools we can do this globally without a governing body -- look to the internet as a prime example of modern-day community governance. There's a million different sites, each with a unique set of rules, culture and communities. But! When something threatened the internet itself (SOPA/PIPA) did those groups not come together as a global community to fight?
You really didn't bring forth any legitimate arguments beyond the logistics issue - which is something that can be solved.
Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by fockewulf190
For the record: Military spending is only 20% of the US Federal spending. Give me a break already!
Domestic spending FAR outweighs military spending, so we need to cut BS domestic programs, such as the EPA, Dept of Energy, and Dept. of Education to start. We can even dismantle some of the programs started as part of Homeland Security, many of which are redundant. Give the money to the states to address their issues.
Military spending did not lead us to the financial troubles of the day...out of control domestic spending and crony capitalism did.