WHAT is so bad about U.S. isolationism?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Agathon
And de Toqueville isn't really a philosopher either.

Yeah, but he's a forreigner who really, really likes the U.S. That means he is REALLY IMPORTANT and has lots of GREAT THINGS to say and is a significant writer because he proves that someone, somewhere out there actually likes the U.S.

[Barnabas]

When has the USA been isolationist?

When they took Texas and California from Mexico?

When they took Puerto Rico and Filipinas from Spain?

When they dismembered Colombia to build the Panama Canal?

It is true that they were rather hesitant on fighting in both world wars, but for me that is just common sense, not isolationism.
After all in the world wars we are talking about the USA going to war against other big powers, not small third world countries.

I think the USA being a naturally isolationist country who is dragged to conflicts unwillingly by other countries is just something you like to tell to yourselves.

It is not supported by history, and the preemptive invasion philosophy of Bush should bury that idea forever.

[Agathon]

"Isolationist" tends to be a euphemism for "unilaterialist". It gives out the impression that Americans really want to keep to themselves, when they are in fact interfering in other people's business.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Agathon


I bruised his ego in an argument years ago (I can't even remember what it was about, but he was nice to me before that). He's such a Queen he won't let it go.

Err...you've never even come close, aggie.

I really have no clue what you're on about.

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, I tend to like people who beat me in arguments. They're generally more interesting than the average.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Err...you've never even come close, aggie.

I really have no clue what you're on about.

See the ego.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Agathon


OK. The Greeks still win by a hefty margin. Hell, even the Romans admitted that. Why do you think most educated Romans spoke Greek?

Think of Caesar's last words...

Stick on point, logical thinker from the liberal arts. The issue was not "who is better: X or Y", but was "Aggie needs to consider the works of Y (and Z), since they have bearing on the issue on the discussion--since they have observations of human nature/tendancy which are relevant for this foreign policy concern/decision."

Now, maybe, I'm wrong. Maybe they're not relevant. But that's the arena of debate. Not "Greeks are more famous philosophers then Romans".

My points was stuff like the Roman who said, if you want peace prepare for war. Oh...and other stuff (of which I don't know...since I had a crappy liberal arts education...but I hoped that it would start you thinking in the direction of some of these works and their implications." The de toqueville stuff is just good for understanding us and why we do and say what we do at times. He nailed us pretty well (on good and bad habits).

[KrazyHorse]

You've got it, Aggie. You beat up on me in an argument, so I started trolling you. This, despite the fact that I get on well with every other poster who's taken it to me. You're the one exception. My humbling at your hands on some yet-to-be-determined topic was so severe that I project an attitude of contempt toward you, your intellect and your rhetoric in order to mask my own feelings of inadequacy.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Tingkai



Yeah, but he's a forreigner who really, really likes the U.S. That means he is REALLY IMPORTANT and has lots of GREAT THINGS to say and is a significant writer because he proves that someone, somewhere out there actually likes the U.S.

Well...um..shyeah!

But I also think that he is apt and insightful (evil consulting word...someone supply a better please). He shines a mirror to us and shows us interesting things about ourselves (including the negative) that we might not know otherwise (since one of our traits is not knowing much about yurpeans ).

[KrazyHorse]

The thought that de Tocqueville is relevant in determining national attitudes and proclivities 170 years after the fact (on the other side of a civil war, 2 world wars, massive immigrant influx from a more diverse population, the Great Depression and the rise of the US as a global hegemon) is ridiculous.

[KrazyHorse]

Hell, I just reread Letters on the English Nation. Doesn't mean I understand why the UK joined the US in Iraq...

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The thought that de Tocqueville is relevant in determining national attitudes and proclivities 170 years after the fact (prior to a civil war, 2 world wars, massive immigrant influx from a more diverse population, the Great Depression and the rise of the US as a global hegemon) is ridiculous.

What's fascinating to me is on how many things he is dead on. It's the unlikeliness that he would be that makes the whole thing amazing. And I come from a half-Yurpean (there...I admitted it...I'm a half-breed too) family and used to stay with grandparents in the 70s overseas. I think he nails things about the American character. Sure things have changed. But there are still all kinds of useful insights. I mean Imperial Rome had changed from the Rome of Cincinatus. But you can still get some useful insights about the Romans accross the centuries if you are looking at it from a Rome/non-Rome perspective.

[KrazyHorse]

I think your impression of him as accurate is more due to the "horoscope effect" than to his insightfulness...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
When has the USA been isolationist?

When they took Texas and California from Mexico?

When they took Puerto Rico and Filipinas from Spain?

When they dismembered Colombia to build the Panama Canal?

It is true that they were rather hesitant on fighting in both world wars, but for me that is just common sense, not isolationism.
After all in the world wars we are talking about the USA going to war against other big powers, not small third world countries.

I think the USA being a naturally isolationist country who is dragged to conflicts unwillingly by other countries is just something you like to tell to yourselves.

It is not supported by history, and the preemptive invasion philosophy of Bush should bury that idea forever.

I think the primary historical thing has been isolationist versus Europe. Not that it was some key aspect of character. But that has changed and we are involved worldwide and have been since 1941.

[TCO]

I mean the Med is a US lake. And it's the ****ing MED. We have to unrep to supply Sixth Fleet. And have since 1945!