Isolationism, Interventionism, and Non-Interventionism

[Green Arrow]

Foreign policy is one of the big issues of our day, perhaps second only to the economy in most Americans' minds. There are many different philosophical approaches on how to tackle foreign policy, but they can all be summed up in three main categories: isolationism, interventionism, and non-interventionism. There's a lot of ignorance and confusion as to what these three terms mean, however, and I'd like to clear up that confusion.

Isolationism vs. Non-Interventionism:

Wikipedia defines isolationism as the following: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism)


Isolationism is a category of foreign policies institutionalised by leaders who asserted that their nations' best interests were best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance. Most Isolationists believe that limiting international involvement keeps their country from being drawn into dangerous and otherwise undesirable conflicts. Some strict Isolationists believe that their country is best served by even avoiding international trade agreements or other mutual assistance pacts.

The article goes on to clarify something very important:


Two distinct and unrelated concepts that are occasionally erroneously categorised as Isolationism are:

1. Non-interventionism – is the belief that political rulers should avoid military alliances with other nations and to avoid interfering in wars bearing no direct impact on their country. However, most non-interventionists are supporters of free trade, travel, and support certain international agreements, unlike isolationists.


2. Protectionism – Relates more often to economics, its proponents believe that there should be legal barriers in order to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

This is where the most confusion resides. Often, people in American politics mistake isolationism for non-interventionism, and vice versa, but the two are completely different ideologies. Under non-interventionism, there is still trade, travel, and international cooperation. Under isolationism, there is no interaction with other countries whatsoever.

[Chris]

Ron Paul define libertarianism as non-interventionism...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5paCN-H1U34

[Ransom]

Wikipedia:biglaugh:

Isolationism, Interventionism, and Non-Interventionism
_____________________________________________

Common Denominators

[Ransom]

Isolationism is a category of foreign policies institutionalised by leaders who asserted that their nations' best interests were best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance. Most Isolationists believe that limiting international involvement keeps their country from being drawn into dangerous and otherwise undesirable conflicts.

Peter1469
Chloe
Mainecoons
Codename Section

Ask and you shall receive

[Codename Section]

Right. Who's one of those on here? I'm all about interacting with countries via trade.

[Chris]

Wikipedia:biglaugh:

Isolationism, Interventionism, and Non-Interventionism
_____________________________________________

Common Denominators


You don't even know what common denominator is, do you.

http://i.snag.gy/RxIc7.jpg

[Green Arrow]

Isolationism is a category of foreign policies institutionalised by leaders who asserted that their nations' best interests were best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance. Most Isolationists believe that limiting international involvement keeps their country from being drawn into dangerous and otherwise undesirable conflicts.

@Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10)
@Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565)
@Mainecoons (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=145)
@Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866)

Ask and you shall receive

Well, Code is Non-Interventionist, not Isolationist. As for the others, we'll wait for them to speak up, but I can guarantee Peter is not isolationist.

[Ransom]

You don't even know what common denominator is, do you.


I don't own a hair splitter either.....Chris. I get to the point.

[Ransom]

Well, Code is Non-Interventionist, not Isolationist. As for the others, we'll wait for them to speak up, but I can guarantee Peter is not isolationist.

I have had several conversations with Pete....and Code....and Chloe....Maine in his defense thanks the posts...doesn't really opine. And I am using YOUR given definition of isolationism there....if you'll note. And Peter1469, student Arrow, has repeated this exact policy of our "nations' best interests were best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance." Pete argues we keep the affairs of other countries at a distance, perfect example being Syria or Afghanistan. then what was this...again....YOUR provided definition...."Most Isolationists believe that limiting international involvement keeps their country from being drawn into dangerous and otherwise undesirable conflicts."

Why...the 4 I mentioned.....are frickin posterchildren for limiting international involvement keeping our country from supposed danger and undesire. Pete arguing with me that our global footprint needs to shrink. That we aren't the world's policeman. Sorry...you started this thread asking me who is an isolationist....and using your definiton, I named 4 that will proudly boast that policy defined above. Pete is the f'n mirror image of it!

[Chris]

I don't own a hair splitter either.....Chris. I get to the point.

What's the point of your obfuscation?

[Green Arrow]

I have had several conversations with Pete....and Code....and Chloe....Maine in his defense thanks the posts...doesn't really opine. And I am using YOUR given definition of isolationism there....if you'll note. And @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10), student Arrow, has repeated this exact policy of our "nations' best interests were best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance." Pete argues we keep the affairs of other countries at a distance, perfect example being Syria or Afghanistan. then what was this...again....YOUR provided definition...."Most Isolationists believe that limiting international involvement keeps their country from being drawn into dangerous and otherwise undesirable conflicts."

Why...the 4 I mentioned.....are frickin posterchildren for limiting international involvement keeping our country from supposed danger and undesire. Pete arguing with me that our global footprint needs to shrink. That we aren't the world's policeman. Sorry...you started this thread asking me who is an isolationist....and using your definiton, I named 4 that will proudly boast that policy defined above. Pete is the f'n mirror image of it!

If any of them support having SOME footprint or keeping up trade and diplomacy, as Code does, then they are not isolationist, student Ransom.

[Ransom]

Some footprint means trade, tourism, diplomacy, continuing a pipleline from Canada through the US for example. Without the knowledge that there must be a presence keeping those sea lanes open to secure trade, someone to step in when idealists or sheer evil doesn't accept reality.....it doesn't happen all by itself, Cadet.

[Green Arrow]

Some footprint means trade, tourism, diplomacy, continuing a pipleline from Canada through the US for example. Without the knowledge that there must be a presence keeping those sea lanes open to secure trade, someone to step in when idealists or sheer evil doesn't accept reality.....it doesn't happen all by itself, Cadet.

That's nice, but wholly irrelevant.

[Peter1469]

When you guys see that Ransom doesn't understand the topic, you won't take him this seriously.

[Green Arrow]

When you guys see that Ransom doesn't understand the topic, you won't take him this seriously.

Who said I take him seriously now? :tongue:

[Ransom]

When you guys see that Ransom doesn't understand the topic, you won't take him this seriously.

What up, Isolationist?

[Green Arrow]

You asked my list of who is an isolationist, I listed four names, mentioned their arguments in summation.......you asked, I gave.

Peter now smarting over getting smoked over his offer of nuclear weapons to prevent Syrian WMD proliferation, his opinion that Syria doesn't rise to the level of a national security issue that flies in the face of testimony just given by our 5 national security officials, and his insistence that 'it's about time' we shrink our global footprint, we come home, bury our head in the sand and pray no one takes advantage of our arses in the air while were not watching. Like has already happened on several occasions.

You girls don't like getting your f'n nonsense scorched and that is too f'n bad. Either sanction me, give me 24 hours in the hole, thread ban me whatever......the forum beatings will continue. Burying your bullshit.

What beatings? Despite having it sourced, you're still completely ignoring the fact that isolationists don't want ANY involvement with foreign nations, while non-interventionists still want diplomacy and trade. Everybody on your list still wants diplomacy and trade, which means they can't be isolationist.

The only thing scorched is your ass.

[Chris]

When you guys see that Ransom doesn't understand the topic, you won't take him this seriously.



Doesn't understand, or a troll deliberately obfuscating?

[Peter1469]

Doesn't understand, or a troll deliberately obfuscating?

I don't think Ransom is a troll. He simply doesn't comprehend these international relations / national security issues. It is obvious when you read what he writes. He can take a perfectly fine article or proposition, and get it completely wrong when he tries to apply it....

[Chris]

I don't think Ransom is a troll. He simply doesn't comprehend these international relations / national security issues. It is obvious when you read what he writes. He can take a perfectly fine article or proposition, and get it completely wrong when he tries to apply it....


Nah, when someone deliberately conflate different ideas, different policies, after several explainings--and we've had many discussions on this, then I think all they're not interested in discussion, all they're doing is trolling for a reaction.

[donttread]

Foreign policy is one of the big issues of our day, perhaps second only to the economy in most Americans' minds. There are many different philosophical approaches on how to tackle foreign policy, but they can all be summed up in three main categories: isolationism, interventionism, and non-interventionism. There's a lot of ignorance and confusion as to what these three terms mean, however, and I'd like to clear up that confusion.

I'm somewhere in between but closer to isolationist. Free trade is great except for its unsustainable nature and the need to localize not globalize economies.
Isolationism vs. Non-Interventionism:

Wikipedia defines isolationism as the following: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism)



The article goes on to clarify something very important:



This is where the most confusion resides. Often, people in American politics mistake isolationism for non-interventionism, and vice versa, but the two are completely different ideologies. Under non-interventionism, there is still trade, travel, and international cooperation. Under isolationism, there is no interaction with other countries whatsoever.

[Chris]

I'm somewhere in between but closer to isolationist. Free trade is great except for its unsustainable nature and the need to localize not globalize economies.

Trade has always been global, that's not the problem with globalization. What globalization--NAFTA, CAFTA and other trade agreements--does is globalize regulation of global trade. Trade needs to be liberalized instead.

[donttread]

Trade has always been global, that's not the problem with globalization. What globalization--NAFTA, CAFTA and other trade agreements--does is globalize regulation of global trade. Trade needs to be liberalized instead.

You mean like shipping chicken to another country to be made into nuggets and shipped back. ? Or moving your dinner 2,000 miles and then complaining about fossil fuel usage.

[Blackrook]

Foreign policy is one of the big issues of our day, perhaps second only to the economy in most Americans' minds. There are many different philosophical approaches on how to tackle foreign policy, but they can all be summed up in three main categories: isolationism, interventionism, and non-interventionism. There's a lot of ignorance and confusion as to what these three terms mean, however, and I'd like to clear up that confusion.

Isolationism vs. Non-Interventionism:

Wikipedia defines isolationism as the following: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism)



The article goes on to clarify something very important:



This is where the most confusion resides. Often, people in American politics mistake isolationism for non-interventionism, and vice versa, but the two are completely different ideologies. Under non-interventionism, there is still trade, travel, and international cooperation. Under isolationism, there is no interaction with other countries whatsoever.That is a stupid definition of isolationism, which is attempt to make it look ridiculous. Not even North Korea is isolationist by this definition.

[Green Arrow]

That is a stupid definition of isolationism, which is attempt to make it look ridiculous. Not even North Korea is isolationist by this definition.

It is the only definition of isolationist, and North Korea can no longer be considered isolationist anyway because they carry on trade and diplomacy with other nations.

[Ransom]

What beatings? Despite having it sourced, you're still completely ignoring the fact that isolationists don't want ANY involvement with foreign nations, while non-interventionists still want diplomacy and trade. Everybody on your list still wants diplomacy and trade, which means they can't be isolationist.

Sourced by Wikipedia(:biglaugh:), the definition provided by you.....your query was who do I think is an isolationist and I gave you 4 names, gave the exact reasons why I believed them of the isolationist stripe......and you're now trying to redefine your given definition of an isolationist, Mr. Backpedal. I'm "ignoring that isolationists don't want ANY involvement?" Your own definition supported by Wiki was that "limited involvement" prevented being pulled into dangerous situations. Staying out of the affairs of other nations......and Syria was given as a prime example.


The only thing scorched is your ass.

That's because I'm feasting on Isolationism Pie. Cooked to perfection by you of the unawares column, Arrow. Your arguments seem to ignore what is necessary to maintain all of this 'trade and diplomacy.' Your Pie in the sky nonsense mirrored by the 4 rocket scientists I mentioned...is already scorched. Has been for decades. We cannot sit here like idle schoolchildren while others plot destruction. How many times must this lesson brown your pies to perfection, Iso? You 5 Copernicus level geopolitical experts wouldn't have considered Afghanistan a national security threat in 1999 either. You wouldn't have found it necessary to deal with Saddam Hussein.

You don't like your argument pegged in the proper slot, Arrow. that's the reason your argument here sounds defensive....and now backpedals furiously.

[Ransom]

Trade has always been global, that's not the problem with globalization. What globalization--NAFTA, CAFTA and other trade agreements--does is globalize regulation of global trade. Trade needs to be liberalized instead.

Trade does have to be global indeed, I take Chris' offering here and run with it. Trade may indeed need to be liberalized or unregulated...but it must be secured, its' an endeavor that requires a military presence...abroad. A large footprint if you will. This just to the right of Attila on the neocon meter member of this forum believe that may indeed require military intervention including occupation. Many of my students on this forum wrongly believe this freedom of movement, that your imports and exports will remain unhampered with, allowed 'liberalization' in every port whether air, land, or sea.

I believe it was our 3rd President who inspired the shores of Tripoli lyrics if I'm not mistaken. The United States has never been offered peace or diplomacy nor freedom of trade or liberalization without having to insist on it....have we? We've never been offered freedom of movement, unless we were willing to pave the roads, ensure shipping lanes remain open, and show up with a smile.....carrying a big fat f'n stick.

Examples always help students. A lil audio visual for you helps the slower and the more stubborn. I give you the Republic of South Korea. A 'war' we perhaps should never have entered. Certainly not one you 5 isolationists would encourage. Worth one American life? No. Threatened a much larger conflict? Yes.

I submit to readers. South Korea doesn't exist without the invasion and continued occupation of that nation. Ain't saying that's the solution everywhere. Ain't submitting we should invade and occupy in any region, I must be specific as students will tend to wander rather than learn. I'm pointing students to South Korea. Has the now 7th largest exporter benefitted from the continued occupation of US troops, our secure presence in the region, has it benefitted from the American flag snappin in the breeze of the Pacific or Indian oceans?

Why...Class...from a tiny peninsula in the South China Sea....can a nation with a dictatorship on it's border that has divided that peninsula even further...become a serious global manufacturing and trade hub? The second half of the 20th century has seen an absolute explosion of democracy and with it a standard of living for South Koreans that flat out f'n dwarfs it's neighbor to the north. Can anyone in the class explain how US isolationism or the opinions of our rocket scientists in here spouting isolationism brought about that reality and real world example?

Class dismissed.

[Mainecoons]

Yes, we shed blood in South Korea to make the world safe for Hyundais and Kias and created North Korea and got South Korea, about as unfair a trading partner as one could want.

Ransom, you remind me of the liberals here, unable to learn from mistakes. You are living in a country that is basically bankrupt, spending more on "defense" (which is mostly offense) than all the rest of the world combined, is failing miserably at trying to police the world, and just won't give it up.

Liberals and neocons seem to share that same sort of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

[Peter1469]

Yes, we shed blood in South Korea to make the world safe for Hyundais and Kias and created North Korea and got South Korea, about as unfair a trading partner as one could want.

Ransom, you remind me of the liberals here, unable to learn from mistakes. You are living in a country that is basically bankrupt, spending more on "defense" (which is mostly offense) than all the rest of the world combined, is failing miserably at trying to police the world, and just won't give it up.

Liberals and neocons seem to share that same sort of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

Neocons are liberals who left the democrat party during Vietnam.

[Chris]

Trade does have to be global indeed, I take Chris' offering here and run with it. Trade may indeed need to be liberalized or unregulated...but it must be secured, its' an endeavor that requires a military presence...abroad. A large footprint if you will. This just to the right of Attila on the neocon meter member of this forum believe that may indeed require military intervention including occupation. Many of my students on this forum wrongly believe this freedom of movement, that your imports and exports will remain unhampered with, allowed 'liberalization' in every port whether air, land, or sea.

I believe it was our 3rd President who inspired the shores of Tripoli lyrics if I'm not mistaken. The United States has never been offered peace or diplomacy nor freedom of trade or liberalization without having to insist on it....have we? We've never been offered freedom of movement, unless we were willing to pave the roads, ensure shipping lanes remain open, and show up with a smile.....carrying a big fat f'n stick.

Examples always help students. A lil audio visual for you helps the slower and the more stubborn. I give you the Republic of South Korea. A 'war' we perhaps should never have entered. Certainly not one you 5 isolationists would encourage. Worth one American life? No. Threatened a much larger conflict? Yes.

I submit to readers. South Korea doesn't exist without the invasion and continued occupation of that nation. Ain't saying that's the solution everywhere. Ain't submitting we should invade and occupy in any region, I must be specific as students will tend to wander rather than learn. I'm pointing students to South Korea. Has the now 7th largest exporter benefitted from the continued occupation of US troops, our secure presence in the region, has it benefitted from the American flag snappin in the breeze of the Pacific or Indian oceans?

Why...Class...from a tiny peninsula in the South China Sea....can a nation with a dictatorship on it's border that has divided that peninsula even further...become a serious global manufacturing and trade hub? The second half of the 20th century has seen an absolute explosion of democracy and with it a standard of living for South Koreans that flat out f'n dwarfs it's neighbor to the north. Can anyone in the class explain how US isolationism or the opinions of our rocket scientists in here spouting isolationism brought about that reality and real world example?

Class dismissed.


No one showed for your class...

http://i.snag.gy/75LYx.jpg

[Green Arrow]

Sourced by Wikipedia(:biglaugh:), the definition provided by you.....your query was who do I think is an isolationist and I gave you 4 names, gave the exact reasons why I believed them of the isolationist stripe......and you're now trying to redefine your given definition of an isolationist, Mr. Backpedal. I'm "ignoring that isolationists don't want ANY involvement?" Your own definition supported by Wiki was that "limited involvement" prevented being pulled into dangerous situations. Staying out of the affairs of other nations......and Syria was given as a prime example.

Wikipedia has a bunch of non-Wikipedia sources at the bottom of every article. If you hover your mouse over the numbers within the article, it will give you the source it came from. Wikipedia hate became nonsense like six years ago, dude. But, if Wikipedia is that big of a deal, try the Encyclopedia Brittanica:


National policy of avoiding political or economic entanglements with other countries.

Or maybe the Oxford dictionary:


a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.

I could go on, but the definitions are all the same. Isolationism is completely withdrawing from any entanglements with foreign nations. If you support trade and diplomacy, you are not an isolationist.


That's because I'm feasting on Isolationism Pie. Cooked to perfection by you of the unawares column, Arrow. Your arguments seem to ignore what is necessary to maintain all of this 'trade and diplomacy.' Your Pie in the sky nonsense mirrored by the 4 rocket scientists I mentioned...is already scorched. Has been for decades. We cannot sit here like idle schoolchildren while others plot destruction. How many times must this lesson brown your pies to perfection, Iso? You 5 Copernicus level geopolitical experts wouldn't have considered Afghanistan a national security threat in 1999 either. You wouldn't have found it necessary to deal with Saddam Hussein.

You don't like your argument pegged in the proper slot, Arrow. that's the reason your argument here sounds defensive....and now backpedals furiously.

I'm not beckpedaling, dumbass. I've been saying the same thing every post. You're the one arguing irrelevance. The topoc is about term definitions, not the efficiency of policies.

Besides that, non-interventionism is a proven success, while your beloved interventionism is a destructive nightmare.

[Ransom]

Wikipedia has a bunch of non-Wikipedia sources at the bottom of every article. If you hover your mouse over the numbers within the article, it will give you the source it came from. Wikipedia hate became nonsense like six years ago, dude. But, if Wikipedia is that big of a deal, try the Encyclopedia Brittanica:



Or maybe the Oxford dictionary:



I could go on, but the definitions are all the same. Isolationism is completely withdrawing from any entanglements with foreign nations. If you support trade and diplomacy, you are not an isolationist.

Withdrawing from entanglements isn't anything even close to 'supporting trade and diplomacy' what kind of poppycock is that? In fact the two are quite different, it may be necessary to engage foreign nations to endeavor on trade and diplomacy and our history is replete with examples.


I'm not beckpedaling, dumbass. I've been saying the same thing every post. You're the one arguing irrelevance. The topoc is about term definitions, not the efficiency of policies.

You highlighted ANY, changed it to limited, and now want to deflect because you're getting thrashed


Besides that, non-interventionism is a proven success, while your beloved interventionism is a destructive nightmare.

Examples. Like I gave you. And I note fail to answer any of my questions. Cause you can't.

Mr. Backpedal

[Ransom]

No one showed for your class...

http://i.snag.gy/75LYx.jpg

You got schooled anyway.

[Chris]

You got schooled anyway.

Somebody say something? :read2:

[Ransom]

I asked something. Chris irrelevant here because he's trolling about trying to save his classmates from embarrassment, Green Arrow for some strange reason, has asked something, even started a new thread to get answers.....but cannot seem to give answers. My last paragraph in post #27 has questions. No answers as of yet from Mr. Backpedal.

[donttread]

The long distance movement of food and other routine items is wasteful and unsustainable. Can we ship computers all over the world that people buy every couple of years ? Sure. But food and power traveling hundreds and thousands of miles while worrying about the environmental impact of somebody's 5 mile commute is ridiculous

[Green Arrow]

I asked something. @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) irrelevant here because he's trolling about trying to save his classmates from embarrassment, @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868) for some strange reason, has asked something, even started a new thread to get answers.....but cannot seem to give answers. My last paragraph in post #27 has questions. No answers as of yet from Mr. Backpedal.

I gave all the answers necessary. You, the self-proclaimed geopolitical expert, does not know the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism, no matter how many hairs you try to split.

[Ransom]

You gave no answers whatsoever. I asked specific questions regarding real world examples....you attempted a backpedal and when that didn't work, vacated to thread. Post 27, thanks Cadet.

[Guerilla]

Trade does have to be global indeed, I take Chris' offering here and run with it. Trade may indeed need to be liberalized or unregulated...but it must be secured, its' an endeavor that requires a military presence...abroad. A large footprint if you will. This just to the right of Attila on the neocon meter member of this forum believe that may indeed require military intervention including occupation. Many of my students on this forum wrongly believe this freedom of movement, that your imports and exports will remain unhampered with, allowed 'liberalization' in every port whether air, land, or sea.

I believe it was our 3rd President who inspired the shores of Tripoli lyrics if I'm not mistaken. The United States has never been offered peace or diplomacy nor freedom of trade or liberalization without having to insist on it....have we? We've never been offered freedom of movement, unless we were willing to pave the roads, ensure shipping lanes remain open, and show up with a smile.....carrying a big fat f'n stick.

Examples always help students. A lil audio visual for you helps the slower and the more stubborn. I give you the Republic of South Korea. A 'war' we perhaps should never have entered. Certainly not one you 5 isolationists would encourage. Worth one American life? No. Threatened a much larger conflict? Yes.

I submit to readers. South Korea doesn't exist without the invasion and continued occupation of that nation. Ain't saying that's the solution everywhere. Ain't submitting we should invade and occupy in any region, I must be specific as students will tend to wander rather than learn. I'm pointing students to South Korea. Has the now 7th largest exporter benefitted from the continued occupation of US troops, our secure presence in the region, has it benefitted from the American flag snappin in the breeze of the Pacific or Indian oceans?

Why...Class...from a tiny peninsula in the South China Sea....can a nation with a dictatorship on it's border that has divided that peninsula even further...become a serious global manufacturing and trade hub? The second half of the 20th century has seen an absolute explosion of democracy and with it a standard of living for South Koreans that flat out f'n dwarfs it's neighbor to the north. Can anyone in the class explain how US isolationism or the opinions of our rocket scientists in here spouting isolationism brought about that reality and real world example?

Class dismissed.

The class has a question. Why was it necessary to bring about that reality and real world example? It wasn't and if the example didn't exist I assume the economy would've filled in elsewhere. So what's the point?

Whether Korea is as unproductive as the north or productive as the south we are still free to trade with any other nations and should remain fine regardless of the economy on the peninsula, correct?

[Chris]

I asked something. Chris irrelevant here because he's trolling about trying to save his classmates from embarrassment, Green Arrow for some strange reason, has asked something, even started a new thread to get answers.....but cannot seem to give answers. My last paragraph in post #27 has questions. No answers as of yet from Mr. Backpedal.



Why do you think anyone is paying attention to you anymore?

[Ransom]

The class has a question. Why was it necessary to bring about that reality and real world example? It wasn't and if the example didn't exist I assume the economy would've filled in elsewhere. So what's the point?

The point, late to class, and why was it necessary...and all your questions you respond to my questions with will be answered, with all due respect, can you answer some questions first? Thanks.


Whether Korea is as unproductive as the north or productive as the south we are still free to trade with any other nations and should remain fine regardless of the economy on the peninsula, correct?

Is this another question?

[Ransom]

Why do you think anyone is paying attention to you anymore?

Because they cannot answer my questions. Arrow asked me to the thread Chris, meanwhile your contribution here amounts to trolling.

[Guerilla]

The point, late to class, and why was it necessary...and all your questions you respond to my questions with will be answered, with all due respect, can you answer some questions first? Thanks.



Is this another question?


Has the now 7th largest exporter benefitted from the continued occupation of US troops, our secure presence in the region, has it benefitted from the American flag snappin in the breeze of the Pacific or Indian oceans?
Yes it has benefited, now why does that matter? Things would be fine if we didn't intervene.


Can anyone in the class explain how US isolationism or the opinions of our rocket scientists in here spouting isolationism brought about that reality and real world example?
Isolationism wouldn't have been able to do that. We would be fine without the Korean Peninsula, so again, what was the point of doing it?

Stop playing games, and being so condescending, and just make your points.

[Chris]

Because they cannot answer my questions. Arrow asked me to the thread Chris, meanwhile your contribution here amounts to trolling.

Nice exotix-type answer.

[Ransom]

Nice exotix-type answer.

But it's an answer, Troll. Far more than you have given here. I don't often see you troll this much, bored?

[Ransom]

Yes it has benefited, now why does that matter? Things would be fine if we didn't intervene.

I disagree, I don't believe things would be fine if we hadn't intervened.


Isolationism wouldn't have been able to do that.

No, I agree it wouln't have.


We would be fine without the Korean Peninsula, so again, what was the point of doing it?

We're not doing fine with the northern end of that peninsula, what are you talking about. And doesn't today's SK answer what was the point? Millions enjoying democracy, SK thriving while the north starves an stagnates?


Stop playing games, and being so condescending, and just make your points.

I apprecaite your answers, however, you're the only one that's given any. A nice change of pace in here.

[Chris]

But it's an answer, Troll. Far more than you have given here. I don't often see you troll this much, bored?


So you're a mirror troll, ransom? What's that, you ask? It's a troll who, accused by others of trolling, accuses others of trolling. It's a neat trick, very entertaining.

[Guerilla]

I disagree, I don't believe things would be fine if we hadn't intervened.



No, I agree it wouln't have.



We're not doing fine with the northern end of that peninsula, what are you talking about. And doesn't today's SK answer what was the point? Millions enjoying democracy, SK thriving while the north starves an stagnates?



I apprecaite your answers, however, you're the only one that's given any. A nice change of pace in here.


I don't believe things would be fine if we hadn't intervened.
Why? They would have united the Korean peninsula and there would be peace. The only difference being that Korea would not view us as there mortal enemy, because we wouldn't have started a war with them. So I think things might be better, more peaceful, than they are now.


We're not doing fine with the northern end of that peninsula, what are you talking about Ya, because we put ourself into another peoples business, and now they are pissed, who'd have thought? And with that interference, we still lost the war, or at least failed to get rid of the Communist state, while simultaneously creating an enemy. Now they are a nuclear threat, with us first on the list because of our intervention.




Millions enjoying democracy, SK thriving while the north starves an stagnates?
I personally don't think we should be interfering with another peoples self-determination, other Americans believed that at one time too. It makes me think about if all the freedom loving Koreans hadn't fled to the south and left north Korea with passive sheep, maybe by now they would have done an uprising. More people=harder to control. Or maybe they wouldn't have, but we won't know, because we interfered.

[Ransom]

What's that, you ask?

Post 27 I believe, the last paragraph is where I ask. Last chance to offer substance rather than troll.

[Ransom]

Why? They would have united the Korean peninsula and there would be peace. The only difference being that Korea would not view us as there mortal enemy, because we wouldn't have started a war with them. So I think things might be better, more peaceful, than they are now.

Yeah G, the Korean Peninsula would have united. Rights secured. More peaceful. And snowballs often thrive in hell too, huh?


Ya, because we put ourself into another peoples business, and now they are pissed, who'd have thought? And with that interference, we still lost the war, or at least failed to get rid of the Communist state, while simultaneously creating an enemy. Now they are a nuclear threat, with us first on the list because of our intervention.

I believe anyone can today look to NK and then at SK, it's clear who lost the war. To the victor go the spoils.


I personally don't think we should be interfering with another peoples self-determination, other Americans believed that at one time too. It makes me think about if all the freedom loving Koreans hadn't fled to the south and left north Korea with passive sheep, maybe by now they would have done an uprising. More people=harder to control. Or maybe they wouldn't have, but we won't know, because we interfered.

More people=harder to control? Karl....is that you? And maybe their uprising would have been crushed....and by China for all you know. What happened was quite different.

[Mainecoons]

Uh, Ransom, suggest you take a look at what happened to Vietnam where we "lost."

We didn't win in Korea, we just created a bigger problem.

Here's what we need to do there: Tell the Chinese quietly that if they go in and clean out that criminal regime and restore decent conditions for the people, we won't object so long as they clearly stop at the 38 parallel and establish relations with South Korea. Once that is done, we leave.

That's how you practice non interventionism. One the threat is gone, let the Koreans sort it out like the Vietnamese did.

The domino theory is bunk, it was always bunk.

[Peter1469]

I would not be surprised to see China do something like that, particularly if they had US assurances that we would withdraw from South Korea. That would be an acceptable trade off to me- I would, however, still want one naval base / logistical hub in the region.


Uh, Ransom, suggest you take a look at what happened to Vietnam where we "lost."

We didn't win in Korea, we just created a bigger problem.

Here's what we need to do there: Tell the Chinese quietly that if they go in and clean out that criminal regime and restore decent conditions for the people, we won't object so long as they clearly stop at the 38 parallel and establish relations with South Korea. Once that is done, we leave.

That's how you practice non interventionism. One the threat is gone, let the Koreans sort it out like the Vietnamese did.

The domino theory is bunk, it was always bunk.

[Green Arrow]

Uh, Ransom, suggest you take a look at what happened to Vietnam where we "lost."

We didn't win in Korea, we just created a bigger problem.

Here's what we need to do there: Tell the Chinese quietly that if they go in and clean out that criminal regime and restore decent conditions for the people, we won't object so long as they clearly stop at the 38 parallel and establish relations with South Korea. Once that is done, we leave.

That's how you practice non interventionism. One the threat is gone, let the Koreans sort it out like the Vietnamese did.

The domino theory is bunk, it was always bunk.

No, no, no, that's not how non-interventionism works. All we do is quickly and immediately pull every last troop, plane, ship, and sub back to the U.S. and stick our heads in the sand like ostriches. That's how non-interventionism works.

/sarcasm

[Ransom]

Uh, Ransom, suggest you take a look at what happened to Vietnam where we "lost."

I don't see the winner in Vietnam, Maine, I believe everyone lost that war. I suggest you look to Jefferson's dilemma shortly after election. I suggest you look to Americans in the Philippines, our aid during WWs, our continued occupations of the Korean Peninsula, our continued presence in Europe and the Persian Gulf.


We didn't win in Korea, we just created a bigger problem.

You truly believe there would be a South Korea without US involvement?


Here's what we need to do there: Tell the Chinese quietly that if they go in and clean out that criminal regime and restore decent conditions for the people, we won't object so long as they clearly stop at the 38 parallel and establish relations with South Korea. Once that is done, we leave.

"Tell China...."... to go on and 'clean out'... restore conditions to............'decent'.....like China......we further demand they 'stop' and establish relations with a SK that wouldn't even be f'n there save for direct US involvement? Are you smoking pot? We cannot tell China shat, Maine. They never wanted us there 'establishing' a SK to begin with, you do remember who that war was with, yes Maine? They'll f'n establish alright.


That's how you practice non interventionism. One the threat is gone, let the Koreans sort it out like the Vietnamese did.

Once the 'threat' is gone....cause the threat is the criminal NK regime huh? And then we can leave.....why not leave the Chinese and Philippine Seas as well, China will continue to allow free trade, regional powers can protect a SK or Singapore as has always been historically true, yes?


The domino theory is bunk, it was always bunk.

It's 2014, no one is arguing domino theory, Maine. The argument is that the US global footprint should shrink significantly, arenas such as Syria aren't a national security interest for the US...just everyone else. I'm easily and with utter competence busy f'n destroying that nonsense.

[Ransom]

I would not be surprised to see China do something like that, particularly if they had US assurances that we would withdraw from South Korea. That would be an acceptable trade off to me- I would, however, still want one naval base / logistical hub in the region.

One Naval Base? A logistical hub? Well let's see, that would be a naval force with some fang.....a naval base of size that is capable of supporting carriers, marine detachments, it would have to be staffed by Americans. You'd need a security force of significant size......how about SK for that base and logistics hub, Pete?

You cannot f'n make this up. This is free entertainment.

[Peter1469]

The old NEOCONs will be going to their graves with the younger generations repudiating the NEOCON silly, childish views of the world. I actually take pleasure in that. :smiley:


One Naval Base? A logistical hub? Well let's see, that would be a naval force with some fang.....a naval base of size that is capable of supporting carriers, marine detachments, it would have to be staffed by Americans. You'd need a security force of significant size......how about SK for that base and logistics hub, Pete?

You cannot f'n make this up. This is free entertainment.

[Green Arrow]

One Naval Base? A logistical hub? Well let's see, that would be a naval force with some fang.....a naval base of size that is capable of supporting carriers, marine detachments, it would have to be staffed by Americans. You'd need a security force of significant size......how about SK for that base and logistics hub, Pete?

You cannot f'n make this up. This is free entertainment.

Your cause is already dead, Ransom. You just don't know it yet. We've already one.

[Guerilla]

Yeah G, the Korean Peninsula would have united. Rights secured. More peaceful. And snowballs often thrive in hell too, huh?



I believe anyone can today look to NK and then at SK, it's clear who lost the war. To the victor go the spoils.



More people=harder to control? Karl....is that you? And maybe their uprising would have been crushed....and by China for all you know. What happened was quite different.


Yeah G, the Korean Peninsula would have united. Rights secured. More peaceful. And snowballs often thrive in hell too, huh?
I'm not saying those things would have happened, but you have yet to tell me why they needed to. SK, no SK, who cares? Was SK worth a nuclear enemy?



I believe anyone can today look to NK and then at SK, it's clear who lost the war. To the victor go the spoils.
We failed from destroying the communist regime. It would be there either way. I guess the victor also wins a diehard enemy.



What happened was quite different.
So how was what did happen essential for America?

[Ransom]

The old NEOCONs will be going to their graves with the younger generations repudiating the NEOCON silly, childish views of the world. I actually take pleasure in that. :smiley:

Let us pray the unappreciative younger and inexperienced generation prospers in a society of relative peace and high standard of living. It's so like someone of zero historical perspective to make this statement. I'll have to work it into the award winners.

But back to the topic where you're currently getting embarrassed and thus need this distraction.

[Ransom]

Your cause is already dead, Ransom. You just don't know it yet. We've already one.

You've already won what, Arrow? Green ain't just a name is it, rookie?

[Ransom]

I'm not saying those things would have happened, but you have yet to tell me why they needed to. SK, no SK, who cares? Was SK worth a nuclear enemy?

Oh, cause they weren't going nuclear without us? Who is the nuclear f'n 800lbs gorilla in the room you continue to ignore, G?


We failed from destroying the communist regime. It would be there either way. I guess the victor also wins a diehard enemy.

We failed to destroy....the Chinese Communist regime? Or the North Korean regime? G? And I reckon you could look at the reality as cup half empty or half full. My claim is SK doesn't exist without first Western(mostly US as usual) intervention...and then US troops remaining there over the last decades.


So how was what did happen essential for America?

Why not walk...cause it's not far.....to your local Kia or Hyundai Dealership, G. They've become a massive trading partner. Our presence in the region has been as much a deterence to China an NK insanity as was our continued occupation of Germany following ww2. Yet another example of how a quick exit by isolationists would have seen the globe shaped differently. You youngsters, I swear. Tell me you did more than just chew on the f'n covers of your history books, boys. Tell me you were doing some studying rather than just shagging girls and popping pimples....

[Ransom]

Peter1469

Don't forget actual substance rather than attack because you're argument is getting rolled up and f'n smoked like a cheap cigar. Elaborate on your "I would, however, still want one naval base / logistical hub in the region."

A naval base/logistical hub......might you explain that. It's capabilities.....how many personnel you'd base at this.....hub. You know.....a geopolitical expert such as you might need to elaborate a tad....for we not in the same leaguers. School me. What would this hub look like....where would it be......how many troops or personnel....military or civilian.......or both.

F'n watch this. Explain on Pete, and watch ol Rans carve your argument up like a holiday roast.

[Captain Obvious]

F'n watch this. Explain on Pete, and watch ol Rans carve your argument up like a holiday roast.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/13829103.jpg

[Green Arrow]

You've already won what, Arrow? Green ain't just a name is it, rookie?

The ideological battle. Once the older generations die off, interventionists like you will be in the minority, not the majority.

"Green" isn't a name, it's a descriptor. Like "yellow" for you.

[Ransom]

The ideological battle. Once the older generations die off, interventionists like you will be in the minority, not the majority.

You can learn alot from your older generations before we die off though Arrow. Then you can pay our debt off. Chop chop.


"Green" isn't a name, it's a descriptor. Like "yellow" for you.

Exactly, it's a descriptor. But I don't need anyone to explain to me you're a f'n rookie, Jr.

[Ransom]

Captain Obvious....can you help Pete with answers rather than drawing pictures?

[Green Arrow]

You can learn alot from your older generations before we die off though Arrow. Then you can pay our debt off. Chop chop.

Exactly, it's a descriptor. But I don't need anyone to explain to me you're a f'n rookie, Jr.

Likewise, I need no help understanding that you're a coward. You are unwilling to put your own ass on the line for what you "believe."

[Ransom]

Likewise, I need no help understanding that you're a coward. You are unwilling to put your own ass on the line for what you "believe."

Why my own ass when I can send yours, Jr? Or some useless lawyer's? You focus on me as does Pete because you're getting your f'n arguments piecemeal destroyed. And exposed. You haven't liked me since you asked me to define isolationism in here, started a thread you pointed me to......whereupon I used your given definition regarding 5 members of this forum. Pete is in here claiming he'd like to keep a naval base and logistics hub.....in the region of SK.....a show of force, a forward operating base........what has the US been doing there for the last 60 years? Any logistics hub.....Sir Geopolitical Expert.....would require support and security for our largest warships, we would have to maintain both offensive and defensive capabilities....how about the current USFK cmd and staff.....Pete? We did keep a logistics hub it's called 8th Army, 7th AF, and 2nd inf div. Kaboom

[Green Arrow]

Why my own ass when I can send yours, Jr? Or some useless lawyer's? You focus on me as does Pete because you're getting your f'n arguments piecemeal destroyed. And exposed. You haven't liked me since you asked me to define isolationism in here, started a thread you pointed me to......whereupon I used your given definition regarding 5 members of this forum.

Poor you. At any rate, I'm not focusing on you. I'd say the same to any neocon coward who is all too willing to make others suffer to further their goals, but run when it is their turn.

[Ransom]

Poor you. At any rate, I'm not focusing on you. I'd say the same to any neocon coward who is all too willing to make others suffer to further their goals, but run when it is their turn.

Oh, the run when it is their turn is new, nice twist. Getting outdone in a talk forum seems personal to you, I wouldn't take it so. Pete was undone with ease you never stood a chance. I don't know why you even invited me to the thread, I've been embarrassing your arguments ever since.

[Green Arrow]

Oh, the run when it is their turn is new, nice twist. Getting outdone in a talk forum seems personal to you, I wouldn't take it so. Pete was undone with ease you never stood a chance. I don't know why you even invited me to the thread, I've been embarrassing your arguments ever since.

You think so highly of yourself. It's cute.

[Chloe]

Oh, the run when it is their turn is new, nice twist. Getting outdone in a talk forum seems personal to you, I wouldn't take it so. Pete was undone with ease you never stood a chance. I don't know why you even invited me to the thread, I've been embarrassing your arguments ever since.

You're just conceited, and for no real reason.

[Codename Section]

@Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10)

Don't forget actual substance rather than attack because you're argument is getting rolled up and f'n smoked like a cheap cigar. Elaborate on your "I would, however, still want one naval base / logistical hub in the region."

A naval base/logistical hub......might you explain that. It's capabilities.....how many personnel you'd base at this.....hub. You know.....a geopolitical expert such as you might need to elaborate a tad....for we not in the same leaguers. School me. What would this hub look like....where would it be......how many troops or personnel....military or civilian.......or both.

F'n watch this. Explain on Pete, and watch ol Rans carve your argument up like a holiday roast.

Do you honestly think that everyone is a so stupid that they don't see through this fake task there Rumplstiltskin? Make Pete waste time discussing something that a CO or better, staff of flags, take years to plan.

Hey, go solve world peace. Explain what you would do to make peace happen. We all can't wait to carve up your argument.

[Germanicus]

Autarky equals economic independence. All nations should have economic independence. Economy should be secondary. This is why we need four global delivery/storage points for all major resources to help nations disadvantaged by lack of access to resources. Base necessity levels on essential areas of economy will be ensured by the independent extranational body that replaces the UN. (

As far as the USA is concerned it should follow what Ron Paul was going to do with foreign policy. Close down all the US military bases. Bring home the troops from all over the world and not just the ones in the middle east. Protect US borders and end imperialism. Stop using charity/aid for imperialism through the IMF and the UN. Ron Paul was not advocating isolationism. He was wanting to end US neo-colonialism and imperialism. The spheres of US economic influence should not be maintained by military force and intimidation. USA should use peaceful exceptionalism.. to maintain status.

[Ransom]

You're just conceited, and for no real reason.

Calling names, Chloe? Let's practice what we f'n preach and not name call. Okay.

[Ransom]

You think so highly of yourself. It's cute.

I think higher of myself everyday I exchange with the likes of you, Arrow. You make me look like a rocket scientist.

[Ransom]

Do you honestly think that everyone is a so stupid that they don't see through this fake task there Rumplstiltskin? Make Pete waste time discussing something that a CO or better, staff of flags, take years to plan.

I don't think everyone is stupid, CS. You, Pete, Chloe,Arrow, Maine on this topic, Chloe, and did I mention Chloe....are wholesale f'n ignorant on this topic. And I've done nothing but prove that on a daily basis. Carry on.


Hey, go solve world peace. Explain what you would do to make peace happen. We all can't wait to carve up your argument.

Explain what I would do to make "peace happen?" Why.....I'd come back home, stick my head in the sand like a coward ostrich, ignore events unfolding abroad, pretend it doesn't have anything to do with us, pray and hope everyone will just like us, quit targeting us, forgive past sins........you act like a little f'n tulip is how you bring peace. Where it was once walking softly and carrying a big stick, now it's now walking at all and carrying a peace lily....thinking that's gonna solve the problems.

My plan is to leave Peter in charge. Pete would then allow regional powers to make more decisions....likie Turkey. I'd leave people like you in charge CS, people who don't even realize our public schools are one of our primary national security risks. I'd leave Chole in charge so she can label who is conceited and who isn't. Guerilla the only one of you in this thread at the present moment who has anything close to a clue.......you CS lag far behind.

Plan to make peace happen.:biglaugh:

What a joke you've become.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I'm not saying those things would have happened, but you have yet to tell me why they needed to. SK, no SK, who cares? Was SK worth a nuclear enemy?


We failed from destroying the communist regime. It would be there either way. I guess the victor also wins a diehard enemy.


So how was what did happen essential for America?

Truman wanted to empower the Military-Industrial Complex for decades to come by not minimizing the power of Communism. That's why he refused to drive Russia out of Eastern Europe when we had a monopoly on the atomic bomb. That's why he refused to let MacArthur win a united Korea by knocking out China.

[Ivan88]

6076 Nice avatar Chloe 6077

As long as we arrogantly and egotistically continue to ignore the fact that we have been used to create chaos, destruction, misery and death for millions & billions of people, we can never arrive at any peace except the peace of the grave.

America was created to Bless the world, but, we chose to follow lies and race off to one war of aggression after another to enrich the super-rich.

As long as we refuse to confess our wrongs, repent, and conform our thoughts and actions to the Will and Word of "nature's God" we will go deep and deeper into trouble.
We been following racketeers, not the God of Life and Love:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

[Ransom]

Wars of aggression? Like the one that won us our independence, like the one we fought to end slavery, like WW2 where we weren't the aggressors?

History can be fun to learn.

[Ivan88]

Wars of aggression? Like the one that won us our independence, like the one we fought to end slavery, like WW2 where we weren't the aggressors?

History can be fun to learn.

Well, his-story is not as much fun as finding out what really happened.

The American "Shot heard round the world" was really a reactionary action. It did not solve any problems, and only created more problems.

Americans should have been patient and converted Britain to Christ's Way. Instead our reactionary actions encouraged the British into more reactionary action. We violently got rid of a king and got a president who is a lieutenant in the kings army.
Taxes and oppression were worse under the new regime than under the King.
And, our little war drove Britain into the greedy hands of the East India Company.
The disasters of the 19th and 20th centuries stem from our violence.

Lincoln's Communist Revolution was to enslave all Americans to big business interests. Slavery didn't end, it just changed.

In both World Wars we were aggressors pretending to be saviors.

All our wars were basically aggressive, except maybe the war of 1812.

All our wars were avoidable if we were following the Ways of Peace, which is the weightier matters of the Law, Truth, Mercy and Faith & The Rights of Man to Life, Property, Truth, and Security.
6078

[Chloe]

Calling names, Chloe? Let's practice what we f'n preach and not name call. Okay.

Everybody is laughing at you...not with you.

[Chloe]

6076 Nice avatar Chloe 6077



thanks

[Ransom]

Everybody is laughing at you...not with you.

But they're not laughing at me for insisting on no name calling....and then hypocritically engaging in it.

Or is calling your trolling here hypocrisy and thus calling you a name?

[Ransom]

Well, his-story is not as much fun as finding out what really happened.

The American "Shot heard round the world" was really a reactionary action. It did not solve any problems, and only created more problems.

It didn't create more problems, if you'll simply read your history book, it offered so many more opportunities.


Americans should have been patient and converted Britain to Christ's Way. Instead our reactionary actions encouraged the British into more reactionary action. We violently got rid of a king and got a president who is a lieutenant in the kings army.
Taxes and oppression were worse under the new regime than under the King.
And, our little war drove Britain into the greedy hands of the East India Company.
The disasters of the 19th and 20th centuries stem from our violence.

There was a North West company, Ivan. With designs on the upper Louisiana, fur trade with Indians, indeed to the entire length of the Missouri river. The history book.....the one with the unbroken binding over there on your shelf.......f'n read it Ivan.


Lincoln's Communist Revolution was to enslave all Americans to big business interests. Slavery didn't end, it just changed.

Slavery ended and many died making that a certainty. Your history book Ivan......


In both World Wars we were aggressors pretending to be saviors.

We were not and went into both wars completely unprepared. Without militaries to be the aggressors. You are starting to bore me, Ivan, what grade are you in.


All our wars were basically aggressive, except maybe the war of 1812.

What an awesome conclusion. All wars are of an aggressive nature....like we tried to win them or something.


All our wars were avoidable if we were following the Ways of Peace, which is the weightier matters of the Law, Truth, Mercy and Faith & The Rights of Man to Life, Property, Truth, and Security.


All wars aren't avoidable Ivan. And we weren't always the aggressor. And you are just bomb throwning here, it's clear you've no idea what you're talking about. You remind me of Pete.

[donttread]

It didn't create more problems, if you'll simply read your history book, it offered so many more opportunities.



There was a North West company, Ivan. With designs on the upper Louisiana, fur trade with Indians, indeed to the entire length of the Missouri river. The history book.....the one with the unbroken binding over there on your shelf.......f'n read it Ivan.



Slavery ended and many died making that a certainty. Your history book Ivan......



We were not and went into both wars completely unprepared. Without militaries to be the aggressors. You are starting to bore me, Ivan, what grade are you in.



What an awesome conclusion. All wars are of an aggressive nature....like we tried to win them or something.



All wars aren't avoidable Ivan. And we weren't always the aggressor. And you are just bomb throwning here, it's clear you've no idea what you're talking about. You remind me of Pete.

Lets reframe the language a little . Our only remotely just war since WW 2 WAS Afghanistan , until the enemy left and we freakin stayed. We had no business in Korea, Nam, Dessert Storm, or Iraq

[Ivan88]

I reckon some times a guy has to intervene....... maybe that makes him an interventionist. Watched a thoughtful Korean movie tonight about some thugs; And Intervention occurs. Last important line in the movie is 1st "Do you have to be so crazy? 2nd I just enforced the law. 1st. The law? 2nd. Criminal Code Article 21-2: When benefit and protection of the law is violated, one acts accordingly to prevent it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yDjJw7c6Go You have done it again Chloe. If it is you, God has good taste. If its someone else, He's still a great artist, and you still have a good eye for beauty too.