|
|
Because Iraq, 9/11, U.S.S. Cole, Vietnam, etc., etc., etc. (not to mention our own infrastructure problems such as Katrina and the bridge collapse that are in large part due to poor resource allocation) unequivocally demonstrate that Washingtonian/Jeffersonian concerns over foreign interventionism are no longer valid in today's world.Originally Posted by Cool Hand Clyde
The policies of Washington and Jefferson were pretty sound, too bad we didn't stay true to our ideals as a country.
Let's go back to riding horses then and importing slaves to work the fields.
How about the defeat of the Nazis and the fall of communism? Those things would not have happened if a Ron Paul type person was president.
Ronald Reagan would bitch slap Ron Paul if he heard his line of BS.
That's just the tip of the iceberg...
Why does neutrality work for Switzerland but not the US?
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Not just human nature, but American nature. No matter what America does, it will never be neutral. It supports something one way or another and can never remain neutral... America would collapse on itself from being neutral to the world. Not to mention the quick overtaking. America can't take on the world, despite what it may seem. MAD would be the only deterrent, but if it got to that point, it would be welcomed.
Also two very different countries, with different histories, with different ideologies, and many more differences... the only real things in common are having lots of money, being countries, and are always talked about.
Do you think the sacrifice of US human life fighting Nazi imperialism in WWII was worth it? If so, please let me know why.
Also, would Hitler have gained power had the US not involved itself in WWI?
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Yes
Yes, I think it was worth it because of the modern society that has come from it. It could be theorized we would be more advanced if the Nazi's won, since they were the smartest obviously since Russia and the US had such a power grab for their scientist. Then again, it could be behind what we are now. But you'll never know, it's already happened.
Do you think it wasn't worth it? Why?
I don't think Hitler would have gained power (therefore no WW2). Before US invovlement, WW1 was going back and forth and no one was overpowering the over towards victory. It very well could have ended in a draw. The Czar would have remained in power. The strict economic sanctions and more placed on Germany would not have happened. And WW2 would never have happened. The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei would never have came to power, much less ever existed. It's ecist and power grab came from the defeat of WW2 and everything that came afterwards (created by both the Allies and the Nazi's themselves).
Let me sum this up:
Ron Paul is both a Daddy Mac, AND The Truth, and everyone needs to vote for him.
WW1 was mostly seen as a European war. Most Americans didn't want to be involved because they saw it as only a European war. America was neutral for the majority of WW1. It took something drastic to wake America up to get involved.
WW2 was mostly seen as a European war. Most Americans didn't want to be involved because they saw it as only a European war, and were more interested in finding jobs, feeding their families, and just generally making a living (Great Depression). America was "neutral" at first. It took something drastic to wake America up to get involved.
WW1 and WW2 in my opinion show enough evidence on their own for exactly why this country can not be neautral, can not isolate itself, can not ignore any threat (no matter how "small" it may seem), and many other things. You know, the whole learning from history as not to repeat it... Yeah, people don't learn. There are right ways to do things and wrong ways to do things. The only way to do it right is to learn from what worked, and what didn't work, from the past. And when something unique comes up, apply all you can.
Jesus dude, he's not saying we'd be better if the Nazi's won. He's saying Hitler was batshit insane crazy and would have failed after invading Russia, even without US intervention.
You give the military WAY too much credit if you are going to credit it (and interventionist policy) with the fall of communism. The system was so screwed up that it was destined to fall (and did eventually fall) under its own power. I'd actually say that the continued existence of the US as a threat to the Russian homeland probably gave a lot of people in the USSR a reason to support the system for longer than they otherwise would have.
I do know that anti-communist intervention led us into such places as Vietnam (brushfire wars, I think they were called). I also know that our interventions led us to train Afghans like OBL, which turned out REALLY well for us in the end. And our spy games as part of defeating mother Russia led us to who knows how much overscrutiny/punishment of innocent civilians by CIA ops, etc. But USSR was never engaged!
Further, while you might make the case that deterrence theory works, it is certainly true that in going MAD we unnecessarily escalated the problem. Could have grown our arsenal much more strategically (and less significantly) if our only goal was to defend US interests and not to be the world power. We created and continued to push a RACE -- if we'd have stopped, I suspect the USSR would have stopped soon after.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
