Zone1 When Has American Isolationism Failed?

[jwoodie]

The more I read of Roman history, the more it seems to merge with American history. The Roman Empire grew to encompass the "known world" by constantly perceiving threats on its borders and conquering new territory in response to those threats. This eventually led to Rome's downfall because it could not afford to maintain its vast empire. The United States seems to be going through the same process by continuing to maintain its military presence and influence around the world.

What, exactly, has this gotten us? Are we safer now than we have ever been in the past? Did saving the USSR from Germany benefit us in the long run? Are we better off because we saved China from Japan? Why haven't we stopped to even consider these questions?

Instead, we have been denigrating the "isolationist" feelings of the American people that existed before each of the last world wars as somehow unpatriotic or supporting foreign dictatorships. Was this anything more than submission to war fever whipped up by opportunistic military and political leaders? Hasn't this allowed for our participation in foreign conflicts ever since?

What, exactly, is wrong with an America First policy that avoids entanglements with foreign affairs? What military threats do we face that can't be dealt with through a strong defensive capability at home? This does not mean that we should ignore serious threats on our borders, but potential threats from thousands of miles away do not require our physical presence to deter them.

It is often said that we have an obligation to prevent any bad occurrences anywhere in the world, but what bad occurrences have we prevented? It seems that, at most, we have come in after the fact to righteously declaim the perpetrators. What good has that accomplished?

If American Isolationism has failed, it is because it has succumbed to the hypnotic beat of war drums. Maybe we should turn down that noise and begin thinking for ourselves.

 

[Oddball]

"Isolationism" is a term coined by the Wilsonian interventionist warmongers, to defame those who want Murica's military used to defend actual Murican soil.

Yes, they're really that scummy.

 

[Oddball]

Now to answer the question: Of course not.

For "isolationism" to be said to have failed, it would first need to have been tried...Also, a specifically defined set of circumstances would be required to be set forth, in order to judge "success" and "failure".

Neither have been the case at all in over a century....There's no baseline from which to judge.

 

[MarathonMike]

The more I read of Roman history, the more it seems to merge with American history. The Roman Empire grew to encompass the "known world" by constantly perceiving threats on its borders and conquering new territory in response to those threats. This eventually led to Rome's downfall because it could not afford to maintain its vast empire. The United States seems to be going through the same process by continuing to maintain its military presence and influence around the world.

What, exactly, has this gotten us? Are we safer now than we have ever been in the past? Did saving the USSR from Germany benefit us in the long run? Are we better off because we saved China from Japan? Why haven't we stopped to even consider these questions?

Instead, we have been denigrating the "isolationist" feelings of the American people that existed before each of the last world wars as somehow unpatriotic or supporting foreign dictatorships. Was this anything more than submission to war fever whipped up by opportunistic military and political leaders? Hasn't this allowed for our participation in foreign conflicts ever since?

What, exactly, is wrong with an America First policy that avoids entanglements with foreign affairs? What military threats do we face that can't be dealt with through a strong defensive capability at home? This does not mean that we should ignore serious threats on our borders, but potential threats from thousands of miles away do not require our physical presence to deter them.

It is often said that we have an obligation to prevent any bad occurrences anywhere in the world, but what bad occurrences have we prevented? It seems that, at most, we have come in after the fact to righteously declaim the perpetrators. What good has that accomplished?

If American Isolationism has failed, it is because it has succumbed to the hypnotic beat of war drums. Maybe we should turn down that noise and begin thinking for ourselves.

England suffered the same fate as Rome extending their war machine to the far reaches of the globe through pure arrogance. Isolationism and Nationalism are two "isms" that we would do well to adopt because globalism ain't working for us AT ALL.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

What, exactly, has this gotten us? Are we safer now than we have ever been in the past? Did saving the USSR from Germany benefit us in the long run? Are we better off because we saved China from Japan? Why haven't we stopped to even consider these questions?

Instead, we have been denigrating the "isolationist" feelings of the American people that existed before each of the last world wars as somehow unpatriotic or supporting foreign dictatorships.

What, exactly, is wrong with an America First policy that avoids entanglements with foreign affairs? What military threats do we face that can't be dealt with through a strong defensive capability at home? This does not mean that we should ignore serious threats on our borders, but potential threats from thousands of miles away do not require our physical presence to deter them.

It is often said that we have an obligation to prevent any bad occurrences anywhere in the world, but what bad occurrences have we prevented? It seems that, at most, we have come in after the fact to righteously declaim the perpetrators. What good has that accomplished?

Cross That Bridge When We Come to It

America First would hunt down Islamic terrorists all over the world, because they've declared war on us. But it would not get into ultra-liberal nation-building and wouldn't have attacked Iraq at all, starting with its annexation of the cut-and-paste country of Kuwait. We should also get out of the UN and NYETO.

 

[DudleySmith]

lol Isolationism has always failed because it was always percieved by dictators and imperialists as weakness, which is exactly what it was. Nobody ever respected American neutrality, not the Spanish, not the Mexicans, not the French, not the English, not the Germans, not the Japanese, not the Red Chinese. When you don't support others being free, you are going to have no allies at all anywhere. But hey, as long as some hack can convince you it will save you $3 a year, you will swallow the Kool Aid.

Want to know who enforced the Monroe Doctrine? It was the British Navy, not the American Navy. All we have here is a bunch of whiney spoiled Burb Brats sniveling over having to be concerned about something besides themselves and their immediate whims. All this stuff existed already, so why should they be involved? So go ahead, hide under your beds, and see what happens then, It will be far more costly than paying out some chump change today. You want to wait until the wars are fought on your own soil, which is beyond stupid.

 

[MarathonMike]

We should also get out of the UN and NYETO.

NATO would be tricky but definitely out of the worthless United Nations.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The obvious answer: 1937-1941.

 

[badbob85037]

The more I read of Roman history, the more it seems to merge with American history. The Roman Empire grew to encompass the "known world" by constantly perceiving threats on its borders and conquering new territory in response to those threats. This eventually led to Rome's downfall because it could not afford to maintain its vast empire. The United States seems to be going through the same process by continuing to maintain its military presence and influence around the world.

What, exactly, has this gotten us? Are we safer now than we have ever been in the past? Did saving the USSR from Germany benefit us in the long run? Are we better off because we saved China from Japan? Why haven't we stopped to even consider these questions?

Instead, we have been denigrating the "isolationist" feelings of the American people that existed before each of the last world wars as somehow unpatriotic or supporting foreign dictatorships. Was this anything more than submission to war fever whipped up by opportunistic military and political leaders? Hasn't this allowed for our participation in foreign conflicts ever since?

What, exactly, is wrong with an America First policy that avoids entanglements with foreign affairs? What military threats do we face that can't be dealt with through a strong defensive capability at home? This does not mean that we should ignore serious threats on our borders, but potential threats from thousands of miles away do not require our physical presence to deter them.

It is often said that we have an obligation to prevent any bad occurrences anywhere in the world, but what bad occurrences have we prevented? It seems that, at most, we have come in after the fact to righteously declaim the perpetrators. What good has that accomplished?

If American Isolationism has failed, it is because it has succumbed to the hypnotic beat of war drums. Maybe we should turn down that noise and begin thinking for ourselves.

That's a trick question America never had an isolationist. If we ever did he would be slapped around till he shut up.

 

[Natural Citizen]

"Isolationism" is a term coined by the Wilsonian interventionist warmongers, to defame those who want Murica's military used to defend actual Murican soil.

Yes, they're really that scummy.

You beat me to it...

 

[Oddball]

NATO would be tricky but definitely out of the worthless United Nations.

Neither would be tricky....Two simple words would do the job....

"We're out".

 

[candycorn]

The more I read of Roman history, the more it seems to merge with American history. The Roman Empire grew to encompass the "known world" by constantly perceiving threats on its borders and conquering new territory in response to those threats. This eventually led to Rome's downfall because it could not afford to maintain its vast empire. The United States seems to be going through the same process by continuing to maintain its military presence and influence around the world.

What, exactly, has this gotten us? Are we safer now than we have ever been in the past? Did saving the USSR from Germany benefit us in the long run? Are we better off because we saved China from Japan? Why haven't we stopped to even consider these questions?

Instead, we have been denigrating the "isolationist" feelings of the American people that existed before each of the last world wars as somehow unpatriotic or supporting foreign dictatorships. Was this anything more than submission to war fever whipped up by opportunistic military and political leaders? Hasn't this allowed for our participation in foreign conflicts ever since?

What, exactly, is wrong with an America First policy that avoids entanglements with foreign affairs? What military threats do we face that can't be dealt with through a strong defensive capability at home? This does not mean that we should ignore serious threats on our borders, but potential threats from thousands of miles away do not require our physical presence to deter them.

It is often said that we have an obligation to prevent any bad occurrences anywhere in the world, but what bad occurrences have we prevented? It seems that, at most, we have come in after the fact to righteously declaim the perpetrators. What good has that accomplished?

If American Isolationism has failed, it is because it has succumbed to the hypnotic beat of war drums. Maybe we should turn down that noise and begin thinking for ourselves.

Hmmm

I agree that 9/11 was used as an excuse to invade Iraq, rather than to eliminate some immediate security threat. GW's well-intentioned, if unrealistic, goal was to create a new kind of Arab democracy that could serve as a model to break the unending conflicts in that region. A more practical (and less costly) goal would have been to depose Saddam and divide that "country"* into several administrative districts which could decide to unify or remain independent at some future date. In the meantime, we would have been able to establish a permanent military presence to counter Iranian threats to that region.

As far as the Iraq War is concerned, the removal of Saddam was probably justified

By your "logic" we should never do anything that portends the loss of human life: No police, no fire fighters, no heavy construction, no cars, etc. Accordingly, the best way to avoid putting American soldiers into coffins is to disband the military. You sound like a Reservist who likes to play Army on the weekends and collect a pension, but screams bloody murder if actually deployed.

My guess is that if Trump had continued to be for the invasion of Iraq (as he said that he was); you would still be for it too...as you were back in 2015.

 

[SavannahMann]

The more I read of Roman history, the more it seems to merge with American history. The Roman Empire grew to encompass the "known world" by constantly perceiving threats on its borders and conquering new territory in response to those threats. This eventually led to Rome's downfall because it could not afford to maintain its vast empire. The United States seems to be going through the same process by continuing to maintain its military presence and influence around the world.

What, exactly, has this gotten us? Are we safer now than we have ever been in the past? Did saving the USSR from Germany benefit us in the long run? Are we better off because we saved China from Japan? Why haven't we stopped to even consider these questions?

Instead, we have been denigrating the "isolationist" feelings of the American people that existed before each of the last world wars as somehow unpatriotic or supporting foreign dictatorships. Was this anything more than submission to war fever whipped up by opportunistic military and political leaders? Hasn't this allowed for our participation in foreign conflicts ever since?

What, exactly, is wrong with an America First policy that avoids entanglements with foreign affairs? What military threats do we face that can't be dealt with through a strong defensive capability at home? This does not mean that we should ignore serious threats on our borders, but potential threats from thousands of miles away do not require our physical presence to deter them.

It is often said that we have an obligation to prevent any bad occurrences anywhere in the world, but what bad occurrences have we prevented? It seems that, at most, we have come in after the fact to righteously declaim the perpetrators. What good has that accomplished?

If American Isolationism has failed, it is because it has succumbed to the hypnotic beat of war drums. Maybe we should turn down that noise and begin thinking for ourselves.

Isolationism always fails in the modern world.

Wilson was desperate to stay out of the War. The problem was that Germany didn’t believe him. You see for Germany, it was inconceivable that anyone with as much power as the Americans had could fail to use it. That is partly why the Kaiser spent years trying to get America to fight in Central America. Making the public argument that you could not control the Panama Canal if there was Territory you did not control separating you from it.

America tried to stay Neutral ignoring or at most lightly protesting the actions of the German U Boats.

The Zimmerman Telegram changed the attitudes overnight. For most people anyway. Like today there were people too smart to believe such Rubbish. When asked directly if he would deny the Telegram Zimmerman said he could not. He had sent it.

Those people would after the War launch hearings into British Propaganda efforts. There was some. Certainly. But the Germans really did all the things they were credited with in the Propaganda.

Pre World War II FDR desperately wanted to help the British. And he got some laws passed to allow him to help as much as he could. And he issued orders that were questionable.

However the Americans ignored provocation after provocation. Japanese attacks on our people and vessels in China. German sabotage in the United States as well as attacks on our vessels.

Isolationism did not seem to be working. And on December 7 we saw the end result.

The real problem with Isolationism is that it requires both parties to agree. I’ll leave you alone if you leave me alone.

That’s fine, in theory. But if one of the parties to the agreement is a thug. It won’t work.

Let’s view it as a micro instead of a macro. It makes it easier to discuss. Let’s say a Thug is leaning on your friend. Your friend asks for help. You tell him it isn’t any of your problem. The friend cuts a deal and gives up his money to the thug.

Another friend goes down next. The thug is never satisfied with a little. They always want a lot. Eventually the thug controls the entire neighborhood and the fight with him is either extremely destructive or impossible to win. Wouldn’t it be easier and better to stand with your friend against the thug early on?

Yes. Korea was a bad war. Tens of thousands of American Soldiers died. Many times that were wounded. But the war was kept localized. It was kept there in Korea. It didn’t spread across the region.

But back to your friend. If you don’t want to help him directly. You could offer advice on how to fight. Perhaps some weapons to better fight with.

When the Revolution was discussed. The old phrase comes to mind. We can hang together. Or we will certainly hang separately.

Isolationism is discredited because we learned from history. It always ends in tears.

 

[DudleySmith]

Yes. Korea was a bad war. Tens of thousands of American Soldiers died. Many times that were wounded. But the war was kept localized. It was kept there in Korea. It didn’t spread across the region.

Korea was a test of our commitment to new allies in Asia; if we hadn't supported South Korea and later Viet Nam that would have been an open door to Mao and Stalin and Khrushchev that they could take over small countries with impunity.

'Faux 'Libertarians' are just Burb Brat idiots, mostly spoiled narcissists who can't see beyond their own noses and current whims. As Kissinger said, most times re foreign policy all the choices are bad, and it's a question of being able to make the least bad choices.

 

[DudleySmith]

The real problem with Isolationism is that it requires both parties to agree. I’ll leave you alone if you leave me alone.

That’s fine, in theory. But if one of the parties to the agreement is a thug. It won’t work.

Yes, it's necessary to state the obvious for some people, even though they will still be oblivious to it.

It is hilarious to see the GOP channeling Jane Fonda and babbling words like 'warmongers n stuff!!!', though. Just proves they're all about Party and not country, same as Democrats.

 

[justoffal]

The more I read of Roman history, the more it seems to merge with American history. The Roman Empire grew to encompass the "known world" by constantly perceiving threats on its borders and conquering new territory in response to those threats. This eventually led to Rome's downfall because it could not afford to maintain its vast empire. The United States seems to be going through the same process by continuing to maintain its military presence and influence around the world.

What, exactly, has this gotten us? Are we safer now than we have ever been in the past? Did saving the USSR from Germany benefit us in the long run? Are we better off because we saved China from Japan? Why haven't we stopped to even consider these questions?

Instead, we have been denigrating the "isolationist" feelings of the American people that existed before each of the last world wars as somehow unpatriotic or supporting foreign dictatorships. Was this anything more than submission to war fever whipped up by opportunistic military and political leaders? Hasn't this allowed for our participation in foreign conflicts ever since?

What, exactly, is wrong with an America First policy that avoids entanglements with foreign affairs? What military threats do we face that can't be dealt with through a strong defensive capability at home? This does not mean that we should ignore serious threats on our borders, but potential threats from thousands of miles away do not require our physical presence to deter them.

It is often said that we have an obligation to prevent any bad occurrences anywhere in the world, but what bad occurrences have we prevented? It seems that, at most, we have come in after the fact to righteously declaim the perpetrators. What good has that accomplished?

If American Isolationism has failed, it is because it has succumbed to the hypnotic beat of war drums. Maybe we should turn down that noise and begin thinking for ourselves.

War merchants need the revenue.

 

[Oddball]

Korea was a test of our commitment to new allies in Asia; if we hadn't supported South Korea and later Viet Nam that would have been an open door to Mao and Stalin and Khrushchev that they could take over small countries with impunity.

'Faux 'Libertarians' are just Burb Brat idiots, mostly spoiled narcissists who can't see beyond their own noses and current whims. As Kissinger said, most times re foreign policy all the choices are bad, and it's a question of being able to make the least bad choices.

 

[Oddball]

Isolationism always fails in the modern world.

Wilson was desperate to stay out of the War. The problem was that Germany didn’t believe him. You see for Germany, it was inconceivable that anyone with as much power as the Americans had could fail to use it. That is partly why the Kaiser spent years trying to get America to fight in Central America. Making the public argument that you could not control the Panama Canal if there was Territory you did not control separating you from it.

America tried to stay Neutral ignoring or at most lightly protesting the actions of the German U Boats.

The Zimmerman Telegram changed the attitudes overnight. For most people anyway. Like today there were people too smart to believe such Rubbish. When asked directly if he would deny the Telegram Zimmerman said he could not. He had sent it.

Those people would after the War launch hearings into British Propaganda efforts. There was some. Certainly. But the Germans really did all the things they were credited with in the Propaganda.

Pre World War II FDR desperately wanted to help the British. And he got some laws passed to allow him to help as much as he could. And he issued orders that were questionable.

However the Americans ignored provocation after provocation. Japanese attacks on our people and vessels in China. German sabotage in the United States as well as attacks on our vessels.

Isolationism did not seem to be working. And on December 7 we saw the end result.

The real problem with Isolationism is that it requires both parties to agree. I’ll leave you alone if you leave me alone.

That’s fine, in theory. But if one of the parties to the agreement is a thug. It won’t work.

Let’s view it as a micro instead of a macro. It makes it easier to discuss. Let’s say a Thug is leaning on your friend. Your friend asks for help. You tell him it isn’t any of your problem. The friend cuts a deal and gives up his money to the thug.

Another friend goes down next. The thug is never satisfied with a little. They always want a lot. Eventually the thug controls the entire neighborhood and the fight with him is either extremely destructive or impossible to win. Wouldn’t it be easier and better to stand with your friend against the thug early on?

Yes. Korea was a bad war. Tens of thousands of American Soldiers died. Many times that were wounded. But the war was kept localized. It was kept there in Korea. It didn’t spread across the region.

But back to your friend. If you don’t want to help him directly. You could offer advice on how to fight. Perhaps some weapons to better fight with.

When the Revolution was discussed. The old phrase comes to mind. We can hang together. Or we will certainly hang separately.

Isolationism is discredited because we learned from history. It always ends in tears.

 

[DudleySmith]

View attachment 811940

It should. Thanks, he was indeed smarter than most right wingers, if not real conservatives.

 

[Oddball]

It should. Thanks, he was indeed smarter than most right wingers, if not real conservatives.

No, he was a ghoulish fucking chickenhawk warmonger.