You didn't define the term I asked about, James. You have a rather bad habit of making vague off the cuff remarks that I'm assuming you "think" sound intelligent but when someone asks you to clarify what it is you're talking about you struggle to do so
Which term would you like me to defend? You have a terrible habit of thinking you're the final authority on what I am or am not saying, and that it's your plays to ply a thick coat of condescension to your commentary on what it is I'm saying. And as much as I am THRILLED to be lectured by you...
You started off this discussion with me by stating you thought that the military should only be large enough to protect our shores from outside attack...then back tracked on that concept when I pointed out that isolationism has a rather spotty history...now you're back again stating that you don't think we should maintain forces elsewhere in the world because of the cost. So you're right back to being an isolationist again.
Isolationism isn't just about having a paired-down military though. Isolationism is also a foreign policy philosophy that says we shouldn't do anything outside our borders. That's not what I am advocating, at all. I am indeed advocating a much smaller armed forces, yes. I am indeed advocating that we not go off into every corner of the world with a massive army. Yes.
I am not advocating that we just pull up our tent stakes, bring everyone back home and bury our heads in the sand. If we trimmed our defense budget and the size of our military we could still protect our borders and help if there were clearly defined objectives and actual approval from Congress to assist any efforts our allies need help with.
It's actually you, my smug friend, who needs a refresher in what Isolationism actually is:
Your elementary grasp of what Isolationism actually means is laughable. I never said we should do any of the things up there. In fact, I said that I would rather we make treaties and alliances for our combat missions so that we're not bearing the brunt of the cost. I never even said I didn't want us to help out in troubling situations. Just that we don't need the vast military industrial complex.
There are plenty of countries in the world that don't have a massive military and still aren't isolationists. If you don't see how that's possible, that's your thing. But thank God there's a whole other side of the aisle that does see how we can cut the size of the military and still be totally safe.
It's the hawks in your party who pull this shit that make this issue so untenable. If it's not even up for debate, then yet again you see the extremism of "NO COMPROMISE EVER!!!"
Military Should Be Exempt From Spending Cuts, Top Republicans Say
Like so many progressives you seem to be struggling to cope with how to handle having a military. Part of you understands the need for the need for an armed force to protect us but the "starry eyed" progressive in you wants badly to defund it.
Once I filter out your condescension from this paragraph, I'm left with nothing worth responding to, because I already said it above.
As for it being "DEFINITELY" Democracy that's sprung up in the Middle East? Are you actually paying attention to what's happening in Egypt? It's being ruled by a military junta. The Muslim Brotherhood took almost 50% of the votes in the latest elections. I would make the point that what we're seeing in Egypt is the elimination of a repressive dictatorship with a repressive theocracy replacing it. Polls in Egypt show that by almost 2 to 1, Egyptians support strict Islamic theology over modernization and religious freedom. I'm sorry but that definitely ISN'T democracy.
Yeah, typical Conservative, paranoid, war-hawk. Check it out dude: Just because we don't like the results of the election, doesn't make it a real democracy. Do you really think we got it right the first time? Like I said, we had to actually scrap the first government we had because it didn't work. No one came in, toppled our leader, then installed a puppet regime when we couldn't figure it out the first time.
It is Democracy. I know Faux News really wants us to be scared of what happens there, and we should definitely be concerned because it's a big deal. But to call it something other than Democracy because YOU don't like the outcome so far? Pfffft.
lol
