The Tea Party Conundrum

[jokersarewild]

Modern isolationist policy includes allowing trade, and no other form of involvement, that is the point. Even Ron Paul is quoted as "trade, talk, but no troops" for any situation in the world no matter how bad. Ron Paul has said the only place American troops should be is on American soil, that there is never justification for sending troops anywhere else in the world. I admit, it "sounds" good, but the reality is we heve kept the peace and allowed for a level of prosperity and trade not possible any other way. Withdraw all troops from the world and there will be massive wars inside two years that will end all foreign trade as we know it. No oil, no production goods from China, and a real threat of nuclear winter because Israel will not go down without a fight.

 

I don't disagree with you. I was saying that what Hugo had posted didn't match your definition of "isolationism" that you posted.

You do not disagree with that moronic assessment? Please expalain to me how if America removed all its troops from foreign soil how that would end trade? How would that effect our trade with our leading trading partners Japan, China and Canada? Please explain? Please explain to me why there was so much trade even during WWII? TJ's theories are pure loony tunes. What do ya expect from someone who cannot understand the difference betwen wishing someone would not vote and mandating someone cannot vote? Please tell me why any of our troops should be anywhere in the world besides American soil and I will tell you why they should not.

 

What the hell is "modern isolationist policy"? Something the dumbass just made up. Isolationist policy means no interaction with other nations, including trade. Sad I have to explain that. Of course, I realize we have to re and reexplain very simple concepts when dealing with TJ. I expect more out of you JW. The Policy of GW (George Washington) ia all I have ever endorsed. A rational policy that puts America's interests as foreign policy's goal. Not engaging in other nation's civil wars. The Muslim world is full of whack jobs. Let them kill each other. South Korea can kick North Korea's ass. Let them do it. Who owns a few square miles of land in the Middle East does not effect US interests. Israel needs to stand on their owen two feet,

 

Calm your heels there, Hugo.

 

I guess I meant to say that I was neutral on that, since that wasn't what I was arguing about anyway. I was saying that he was trying to make stuff up.

 

And I do believe that we should play less of a role as "world protector". I do, however, see how if we pulled out of everywhere instantly, there could possibly be various wars starting, especially if they knew we wouldn't jump in on either side. Depending on which countries did what, I could easily see it affecting trade, especially if other countries stepped in to cause issues with those whom we trade with. It's not our responsibility to be the wall that stops countries from warring. That's their own job.

 

Also, Hugo, if you look at what my post said, I wasn't agreeing with his "modern isolationist policy" definition. I was calling it out for the bullshit it was.

The kind of answer you would expect from a communist.

 

Ride the Red Wave, baby