What is wrong with isolationism?

[iustitia]

Considering that every war the US fought since 1812 was really about land, money and power and not about self-defense, is isolationism or non-interventionism really that bad? To be clear I'm not drawing a distinction between isolationism and non-interventionism as the focus here is not trade but diplomacy/foreign policy.

Just as a quick reminder-

The War of 1812 served imperialistic desire to invade British Canada under the guise of opposing British impressment of Americans (something that was going on for years).

The Mexican-American War of 1846 was incited by Polk placing troops in disputed territory (meaning Mexico's land that we falsely claimed was ours). When Mexico had the nerve to shoot our troops, we went to war with Mexico and - upon kicking the shit out of a much weaker country - stole 1/3 of Mexico's land. Good thing for railroads and slavery.

The Spanish-American War of 1898 was another false-flag war, rooted in American desire for business in Cuba. McKinley and Congress were more than willing to blame a boiler explosion in the SS Maine on Spanish mines that didn't exist. We kicked the shit out the wading Spanish Empire and then stole its colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines under the guise of liberation.

The First World War had nothing to do with America, except for its financial interests. WWI was a godsend for JP Morgan and the steel industry, and Woodrow Wilson happy to redraw the map "for democracy". The problem was Americans didn't want war, so we forced Germany into sinking civilian ships by shipping arms and ammunition on civilian cruisers like the Lusitania.

The Second World War likewise had nothing to do with America, except for Wall Street's interests in Europe and the Pacific, and FDR's malevolent desires. The Rockefellers had oil interests in the Asia-Pacific that the Japanese were competing for, and the Morgans wanted war in Europe again. Both got what they wanted, and FDR pushed Japan into attacking through agitation and economic warfare, allowing him to link Germany to Japan and war on both. Pearl Harbor was our own doing.

And those are just formally declared wars. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, the Gulf, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. had nothing to do with defending ourselves. It's always either about specific economic interests like the United Fruit Company like in Guatemala, or political hegemony like in former Yugoslavia in the 90's.

It's all bullshit. So why is being an isolationist wrong? Why is 'isolationist' an insult?

[PolWatch]

I don't think isolationist is an insult. Its sensible. American foreign policy seems to prove Einsteins definition of insanity.

[Ransom]

Presidents iustitia and Watch wouldn't have sent Lewis west. Would not have purchased Louisiana. My first beer tonight will be in thanks that the Jeffersons came first...and you Lot second. :cheers:

[PolWatch]

Presidents iustitia and Watch wouldn't have sent Lewis west. Would not have purchased Louisiana. My first beer tonight will be in thanks that the Jeffersons came first...and you Lot second. :cheers:

ya may be right. If Lewis was sent on military mission to invade & take over, I would have sent more people....I'm funny that way.

[iustitia]

Thomas Jefferson had no legal right to buy it and Napoleon had no right to sell it.

[Matty]

Thomas Jefferson had no legal right to buy it and Napoleon had no right to sell it.
Says who?

[Chris]

Says who?

For Jefferson, the Constitution, it doesn't empower such acts.

[iustitia]

Says who?The Constitution and Jefferson's own strict interpretation of it. He was attacked over his apparent hypocrisy.

As for Napoleon, he had no legal right to sell the territory as, either A it was Spain's land or B it was French but such a land sale had to be approved through different legal proxies and not through Napoleon.

And Jefferson knew it. He didn't care. Never let a crisis go to waste.

[Bob]

I don't think isolationist is an insult. Its sensible. American foreign policy seems to prove Einsteins definition of insanity.

You said Einstein which gave me a chance to speak to his theories.

First the essence of both.

The theory of relativity transformed theoretical physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics) and astronomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy) during the 20th century. When first published, relativity superseded a 200-year-old theory of mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics) created primarily by Isaac Newton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity#cite_note-relativity-4)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity#cite_note-spacetime-5)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity#cite_note-fitz-loren-6)
In the field of physics, relativity improved the science of elementary particles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particles) and their fundamental interactions, along with ushering in the nuclear age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_age). With relativity, cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology) and astrophysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysics) predicted extraordinary astronomical phenomena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy)such as neutron stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_stars), black holes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_holes), and gravitational waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity#cite_note-relativity-4)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity#cite_note-spacetime-5)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity#cite_note-fitz-loren-6)
Two-theory view[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theory_of_relativity&action=edit&section=2)]The theory of relativity was representative of more than a single new physical theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_theory). There are some explanations for this. First, special relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity) was published in 1905, and the final form of general relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity) was published in 1916.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity#cite_note-relativity-4)
Second, special relativity applies to elementary particles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particles) and their interactions, whereas general relativity applies to thecosmological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological) and astrophysical realm, including astronomy.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity#cite_note-relativity-4)
Third, special relativity was accepted in the physics community by 1920. This theory rapidly became a significant and necessary tool for theorists and experimentalists in the new fields of atomic physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_physics), nuclear physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_physics), and quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics). Conversely, general relativity did not appear to be as useful. There appeared to be little applicability for experimentalists as most applications were for astronomical scales. It seemed limited to only making minor corrections to predictions of Newtonian gravitation theory.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity#cite_note-relativity-4)
Finally, the mathematics of general relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor_analysis) appeared to be very difficult. Consequently, it was thought that a small number of people in the world, at that time, could fully understand the theory in detail, but this has been discredited by Richard Feynman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman). Then, at around 1960 a critical resurgence in interest occurred which has resulted in making general relativity central to physics and astronomy. New mathematical techniques applicable to the study of general relativity substantially streamlined calculations. From this, physically discernible concepts were isolated from the mathematical complexity. Also, the discovery of exotic astronomical phenomena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomena), in which general relativity was relevant, helped to catalyze this resurgence. The astronomical phenomena included quasars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasars) (1963), the 3-kelvin microwave background radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_background_radiation) (1965), pulsars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsars)(1967), and the discovery of the first black hole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole) candidates (1981).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity#cite_note-relativity-4)

What got me wondering is that Einstein is considered one of the most intellectual genius ever. Yet his first theory was out there for 15 years before having much acceptance. And his second theory took him many years to work out. And it was only 40 plus years after that it got much proof of how it worked.

Imagine all those years where he was not sure if his ideas would be accepted at all.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Considering that every war the US fought since 1812 was really about land, money and power and not about self-defense, is isolationism or non-interventionism really that bad? To be clear I'm not drawing a distinction between isolationism and non-interventionism as the focus here is not trade but diplomacy/foreign policy.

Just as a quick reminder-

The War of 1812 served imperialistic desire to invade British Canada under the guise of opposing British impressment of Americans (something that was going on for years).

The Mexican-American War of 1846 was incited by Polk placing troops in disputed territory (meaning Mexico's land that we falsely claimed was ours). When Mexico had the nerve to shoot our troops, we went to war with Mexico and - upon kicking the shit out of a much weaker country - stole 1/3 of Mexico's land. Good thing for railroads and slavery.

The Spanish-American War of 1898 was another false-flag war, rooted in American desire for business in Cuba. McKinley and Congress were more than willing to blame a boiler explosion in the SS Maine on Spanish mines that didn't exist. We kicked the shit out the wading Spanish Empire and then stole its colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines under the guise of liberation.



It's all bullshit. So why is being an isolationist wrong? Why is 'isolationist' an insult? Not anymore. After letting an incompetent sissyboy draftdodger lead us into wars to fund nation-building campaign contributors and change a regime that was driving oil profits down, Dhimmis blame all wars because of those disasters.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Thomas Jefferson had no legal right to buy it and Napoleon had no right to sell it. James Monroe bought it. Jefferson only gave him enough money to buy New Orleans, but Monroe wasn't one to sheepishly follow pre-set orders when he guessed that Jefferson would back him up for seizing the opportunity.

[iustitia]

James Monroe bought it. Jefferson only gave him enough money to buy New Orleans, but Monroe wasn't one to sheepishly follow pre-set orders when he guessed that Jefferson would back him up for seizing the opportunity.

... So Jefferson bought it.

[Green Arrow]

Isolationism is a bad idea because trade agreements and diplomacy are good things that isolationism would not permit. Additionally, peacekeeping would be prevented by isolationism.

[iustitia]

I purposely conflated isolationism and non-interventionism, ignoring the trade aspect and focusing purely on militarism/peace. The terms are misused so I side-stepped the issue. Or tried to.

As for peace-keeping, I don't believe it exists.

[The Xl]

I don't think anything is wrong with trading with countries and the like.

[Green Arrow]

I purposely conflated isolationism and non-interventionism, ignoring the trade aspect and focusing purely on militarism/peace. The terms are misused so I side-stepped the issue. Or tried to.

As for peace-keeping, I don't believe it exists.

That's why it doesn't.

[Peter1469]

Thomas Jefferson had no legal right to buy it and Napoleon had no right to sell it.

I agree with a lot of the OP.

I also am glad that Jefferson broke the rules. Had he not, North America very well could have been a battleground like Europe during the 20th century.

[del]

I agree with a lot of the OP.

I also am glad that Jefferson broke the rules. Had he not, North America very well could have been a battleground like Europe during the 20th century.

not to mention being a battleground all through the 19th as well

[Peter1469]

Peacekeeping should be only used in very limited situations, to include requests from all sides of the conflict for the peacekeeping assistance.

[Peter1469]

not to mention being a battleground all through the 19th as well

We took care of that with the Indian wars.

[del]

We took care of that with the Indian wars.

a european war by proxy in north america would have been a whole different bag o' donuts.

[Peter1469]

a european war by proxy in north america would have been a whole different bag o' donuts. True.

[Green Arrow]

Peacekeeping should be only used in very limited situations, to include requests from all sides of the conflict for the peacekeeping assistance.

Certainly, we should only be involved if we are wanted. That goes for military force and covert trickery (I'm looking at you, CIA), too.

[donttread]

Considering that every war the US fought since 1812 was really about land, money and power and not about self-defense, is isolationism or non-interventionism really that bad? To be clear I'm not drawing a distinction between isolationism and non-interventionism as the focus here is not trade but diplomacy/foreign policy.

Just as a quick reminder-

The War of 1812 served imperialistic desire to invade British Canada under the guise of opposing British impressment of Americans (something that was going on for years).

The Mexican-American War of 1846 was incited by Polk placing troops in disputed territory (meaning Mexico's land that we falsely claimed was ours). When Mexico had the nerve to shoot our troops, we went to war with Mexico and - upon kicking the shit out of a much weaker country - stole 1/3 of Mexico's land. Good thing for railroads and slavery.

The Spanish-American War of 1898 was another false-flag war, rooted in American desire for business in Cuba. McKinley and Congress were more than willing to blame a boiler explosion in the SS Maine on Spanish mines that didn't exist. We kicked the shit out the wading Spanish Empire and then stole its colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines under the guise of liberation.

The First World War had nothing to do with America, except for its financial interests. WWI was a godsend for JP Morgan and the steel industry, and Woodrow Wilson happy to redraw the map "for democracy". The problem was Americans didn't want war, so we forced Germany into sinking civilian ships by shipping arms and ammunition on civilian cruisers like the Lusitania.

The Second World War likewise had nothing to do with America, except for Wall Street's interests in Europe and the Pacific, and FDR's malevolent desires. The Rockefellers had oil interests in the Asia-Pacific that the Japanese were competing for, and the Morgans wanted war in Europe again. Both got what they wanted, and FDR pushed Japan into attacking through agitation and economic warfare, allowing him to link Germany to Japan and war on both. Pearl Harbor was our own doing.

And those are just formally declared wars. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, the Gulf, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. had nothing to do with defending ourselves. It's always either about specific economic interests like the United Fruit Company like in Guatemala, or political hegemony like in former Yugoslavia in the 90's.

It's all bullshit. So why is being an isolationist wrong? Why is 'isolationist' an insult?

I propose non interventionism and neither importing or exporting daily staples. Trade in other items, laptops for example seems fine

[Stoney]

At least since the Vietnam war, and some would say Korean, we don't have what's needed to win a war. I would argue we've nearly done more harm than good in at least Iraq, Afghanistan, and of course Vietnam. Some of us will remember how we left our friends on the roof of the embassy in Vietnam. We did about the same in Iraq and are in the process of repeating in Afghanistan. We promised them that we would protect them and then left them to fend for themselves, and die for their trust in us.

I'm not convinced we should be isolationists in all instances. But if we can't follow through on our goals and keep the promises made to the people who support us then we just need to stay home.

[Peter1469]

To play the devil's advocate, our wars since and including Vietnam were not about victory. They were about advancing US power globally. It sounds contradictory. But we never gave much of a shit about the Vietnamese. We cared about our European allies who were living under the threat of a nuclear WWIII occurring on their heads. Had we abandoned Vietnam in the 60s, they would have gone wobbly on us.

Other military actions were meant to make small changes in the course of geopolitics. Not to make any massive changes.

Devils advocate off.

For the most part most of these actions were misplaced. Vietnam was a misapplication of the containment theory of George Kennan. He stressed, as I do, that the US should only use force for vital national security interests and should only make allies with nations that actually gave us a tangible benefit for our help. South Vietnam did neither of those.




At least since the Vietnam war, and some would say Korean, we don't have what's needed to win a war. I would argue we've nearly done more harm than good in at least Iraq, Afghanistan, and of course Vietnam. Some of us will remember how we left our friends on the roof of the embassy in Vietnam. We did about the same in Iraq and are in the process of repeating in Afghanistan. We promised them that we would protect them and then left them to fend for themselves, and die for their trust in us.

I'm not convinced we should be isolationists in all instances. But if we can't follow through on our goals and keep the promises made to the people who support us then we just need to stay home.

[donttread]

To play the devil's advocate, our wars since and including Vietnam were not about victory. They were about advancing US power globally. It sounds contradictory. But we never gave much of a shit about the Vietnamese. We cared about our European allies who were living under the threat of a nuclear WWIII occurring on their heads. Had we abandoned Vietnam in the 60s, they would have gone wobbly on us.

Other military actions were meant to make small changes in the course of geopolitics. Not to make any massive changes.

Devils advocate off.

For the most part most of these actions were misplaced. Vietnam was a misapplication of the containment theory of George Kennan. He stressed, as I do, that the US should only use force for vital national security interests and should only make allies with nations that actually gave us a tangible benefit for our help. South Vietnam did neither of those.

What good is global power when we can't even manage our own shit?

[PolWatch]

Look up Viet Nam & Eisenhower. Ho asked for help in getting the French out...nope...France is our friend. Guess who offered Ho help? All of a sudden, Viet Nam was our friend & ally...cue American troops.

[Stoney]

To play the devil's advocate, our wars since and including Vietnam were not about victory. They were about advancing US power globally. It sounds contradictory. But we never gave much of a shit about the Vietnamese. We cared about our European allies who were living under the threat of a nuclear WWIII occurring on their heads. Had we abandoned Vietnam in the 60s, they would have gone wobbly on us.

Other military actions were meant to make small changes in the course of geopolitics. Not to make any massive changes.

Devils advocate off.

For the most part most of these actions were misplaced. Vietnam was a misapplication of the containment theory of George Kennan. He stressed, as I do, that the US should only use force for vital national security interests and should only make allies with nations that actually gave us a tangible benefit for our help. South Vietnam did neither of those.

I wouldn't claim to have knowledge of the inside thinking. But whatever it was we've very clearly shown any would in country supporters know for certain that they can't rely on us to protect them after we leave or rely on us to stay until they can defend themselves. There's also a doctor in Pakistan who has learned that lesson.

[Peter1469]

What good is global power when we can't even manage our own shit?

apples and oranges.

[Peter1469]

Agreed. So far as we handled things.
I wouldn't claim to have knowledge of the inside thinking. But whatever it was we've very clearly shown any would in country supporters know for certain that they can't rely on us to protect them after we leave or rely on us to stay until they can defend themselves. There's also a doctor in Pakistan who has learned that lesson.

[donttread]

Look up Viet Nam & Eisenhower. Ho asked for help in getting the French out...nope...France is our friend. Guess who offered Ho help? All of a sudden, Viet Nam was our friend & ally...cue American troops.

We had no business in that war and we had no business in Iraq and we have no further business in Afghanistan

[Peter1469]

We had no business in that war and we had no business in Iraq and we have no further business in Afghanistan

"Business" is not the standard.

Vital national security interests are the standard.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I argue we've nearly done more harm than good in at least Iraq, Afghanistan, and of course Vietnam. Some of us will remember how we left our friends on the roof of the embassy in Vietnam. We did about the same in Iraq and are in the process of repeating in Afghanistan. We promised them that we would protect them and then left them to fend for themselves, and die for their trust in us.

I'm not convinced we should be isolationists in all instances. But if we can't follow through on our goals and keep the promises made to the people who support us then we just need to stay home. Trust? The South Vietnamese were crooks, cowards, and collaborators. Trust should work both ways. Those people were never trustworthy and should have been abandoned in 1965. The worthless parasites wanted us to fight their war for them. LBJ originally promised, "I will not send American boys to fight a war that Asian boys should fight themselves."

[Ransom]

ya may be right. If Lewis was sent on military mission to invade & take over, I would have sent more people....I'm funny that way.

It was a military mission, Stick. To take over. Captain Meriweather Lewis, correct? What in the world, Forum......we....I swear to God.....no, I won't...but where can I find a forum member who.....can.....who did more with their history book than chew on the flipping cover? I'd like this Forum to have a better....excuse me......a much much much better sense of history. What in the world. Your homework should you choose to do it, PolWatch is the book Undaunted Courage. Author Stephen Ambrose. It was a military mission. Lewis making speech after speech to Indian tribes that they had a new 'Father.'

[Ransom]

What are they teaching in school today. That Lewis was on a trade mission? Read his documents, read about the true opening of the West. Be funny like that.

[Ransom]

And again, that Jefferson and Lewis came first and you Iso's second.....I thank the Good Lord for that daily.:sign_amen:

[Stoney]

Trust? The South Vietnamese were crooks, cowards, and collaborators. Trust should work both ways. Those people were never trustworthy and should have been abandoned in 1965. The worthless parasites wanted us to fight their war for them. LBJ originally promised, "I will not send American boys to fight a war that Asian boys should fight themselves."
A little racist are we?

I doubt there was much difference between them and other poor and desperate peoples and I see little need to help others.

Before you say I don't know what I'm talking about I did my tour in Vietnam and as a consequence a hospital.

[Peter1469]

What are they teaching in school today. That Lewis was on a trade mission? Read his documents, read about the true opening of the West. Be funny like that. I feel your pain.... :smiley:

[Peter1469]

A little racist are we?

I doubt there was much difference between them and other poor and desperate peoples and I see little need to help others.

Before you say I don't know what I'm talking about I did my tour in Vietnam and as a consequence a hospital.

The South Vietnamese government was totally corrupt. We misused the containment theory to get involved there. Forget that- no responsible leader should have propped up that corrupt festering pool.

[PolWatch]

What are they teaching in school today. That Lewis was on a trade mission? Read his documents, read about the true opening of the West. Be funny like that.

from Jefferson Monticello:

(Bold is my addition)

Thomas Jefferson commissioned the Lewis and Clark Expedition in 1803 to explore the northwest territory in order to observe a transcontinental route and natural resources. In 1804, about 45 men headed by Meriwether Lewis (http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/meriwether-lewis) and William Clark moved up the Missouri River, crossed the Rocky Mountains, and from the Columbia River, reached the Pacific Ocean by November 1805. They returned to St. Louis by September 1806 with great fanfare and important information on native people, plants and animals, and geography.

again: if it was a military mission, I would have taken more men...but then again, I'm just an uneducated redneck...

[Peter1469]

I would call it military. People back then weren't pussies. They didn't need to micro manage a complex mission. For god's sakes- the commanders were commissioned officers in the US Army. The commander in chief said I want X result. Go. Nothing more. No micro-managment.

That is leadership.

[donttread]

Considering that every war the US fought since 1812 was really about land, money and power and not about self-defense, is isolationism or non-interventionism really that bad? To be clear I'm not drawing a distinction between isolationism and non-interventionism as the focus here is not trade but diplomacy/foreign policy.

Just as a quick reminder-

The War of 1812 served imperialistic desire to invade British Canada under the guise of opposing British impressment of Americans (something that was going on for years).

The Mexican-American War of 1846 was incited by Polk placing troops in disputed territory (meaning Mexico's land that we falsely claimed was ours). When Mexico had the nerve to shoot our troops, we went to war with Mexico and - upon kicking the shit out of a much weaker country - stole 1/3 of Mexico's land. Good thing for railroads and slavery.

The Spanish-American War of 1898 was another false-flag war, rooted in American desire for business in Cuba. McKinley and Congress were more than willing to blame a boiler explosion in the SS Maine on Spanish mines that didn't exist. We kicked the shit out the wading Spanish Empire and then stole its colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines under the guise of liberation.

The First World War had nothing to do with America, except for its financial interests. WWI was a godsend for JP Morgan and the steel industry, and Woodrow Wilson happy to redraw the map "for democracy". The problem was Americans didn't want war, so we forced Germany into sinking civilian ships by shipping arms and ammunition on civilian cruisers like the Lusitania.

The Second World War likewise had nothing to do with America, except for Wall Street's interests in Europe and the Pacific, and FDR's malevolent desires. The Rockefellers had oil interests in the Asia-Pacific that the Japanese were competing for, and the Morgans wanted war in Europe again. Both got what they wanted, and FDR pushed Japan into attacking through agitation and economic warfare, allowing him to link Germany to Japan and war on both. Pearl Harbor was our own doing.

And those are just formally declared wars. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, the Gulf, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. had nothing to do with defending ourselves. It's always either about specific economic interests like the United Fruit Company like in Guatemala, or political hegemony like in former Yugoslavia in the 90's.

It's all bullshit. So why is being an isolationist wrong? Why is 'isolationist' an insult?

The interesting thing about governments , unlike families , organizations or businesses , is that failure does not automatically lead to a change in course. Therefore , despite the total and abject failure of our interventionism , it still exist

[PolWatch]

I would call it military. People back then weren't pussies. They didn't need to micro manage a complex mission. For god's sakes- the commanders were commissioned officers in the US Army. The commander in chief said I want X result. Go. Nothing more. No micro-managment.

That is leadership.

when I think military mission, I think of conquest, engage the enemy, fighting. Jefferson's instruction seems to say explore, using military personnel...which makes sense to use 45 men instead of a larger force. ???

[Stoney]

The South Vietnamese government was totally corrupt. We misused the containment theory to get involved there. Forget that- no responsible leader should have propped up that corrupt festering pool.
And Iraq, Afghanistan are better in what way.

I think you may be confusing our purpose with who they were.
We seem to be very good about going where we shouldn't by some accounts and not going where we should by others.

[Peter1469]

when I think military mission, I think of conquest, engage the enemy, fighting. Jefferson's instruction seems to say explore, using military personnel...which makes sense to use 45 men instead of a larger force. ???

Fair enough. I consider that military.

[Peter1469]

And Iraq, Afghanistan are better in what way.

I think you may be confusing our purpose with who they were.
We seem to be very good about going where we shouldn't by some accounts and not going where we should by others.

I am not sure what your point is, so I can't comment.

Afghanistan had to be punished for harboring al Qaeda and refusing to turn them over. The occupation was a colossal mistake.

Iraq served one single purpose: an awesome geographical position for power projection in the Middle East. The rest of their problems were NOPD. (not our problem dude)

[Ethereal]

Presidents iustitia and Watch wouldn't have sent Lewis west. Would not have purchased Louisiana. My first beer tonight will be in thanks that the Jeffersons came first...and you Lot second. :cheers:

Why don't you toast to Jefferson's foreign non-interventionist policy as well? Or do you think he spent his days dreaming up ways to export democracy overseas?

[Stoney]

I am not sure what your point is, so I can't comment.

Afghanistan had to be punished for harboring al Qaeda and refusing to turn them over. The occupation was a colossal mistake.

Iraq served one single purpose: an awesome geographical position for power projection in the Middle East. The rest of their problems were NOPD. (not our problem dude)
That's what I thought. We were talking about the worthiness of the people and you the worthiness of the conflict.

[Peter1469]

That's what I thought. We were talking about the worthiness of the people and you the worthiness of the conflict.

That is not a helpful comment.

[The Sage of Main Street]

A little racist are we?

I doubt there was much difference between them and other poor and desperate peoples and I see little need to help others.

Before you say I don't know what I'm talking about I did my tour in Vietnam and as a consequence a hospital. Unlike today's Chickenhawks, most Fascists did brave and personally harmful service in World War I. So did those who came out desperately afraid appeasers and hollow-men pacifists. Their individual experiences and pre-war personalities caused them to fall for popular extremist misinterpretations of the war. They sought to run away from the loneliness of having faced death into some crowd that would tell them what to think. Besides, most vets will tell you that the South Vietnamese were scum.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The South Vietnamese government was totally corrupt. We misused the containment theory to get involved there. Forget that- no responsible leader should have propped up that corrupt festering pool. The whole nation was corrupt. We're subjected to the same multicultie interpretation about the Guatemalans, blaming their government when it's the people themselves. In former times, wiser Americans didn't have that interpretation about the Germans and Japanese, as poor oppressed people forced by their government to follow the orders of fascists.

[The Sage of Main Street]

when I think military mission, I think of conquest, engage the enemy, fighting. Jefferson's instruction seems to say explore, using military personnel...which makes sense to use 45 men instead of a larger force. ??? The Indians didn't know they were being spied upon, so the reconnaissance mission didn't need much muscle behind it. The western Indians' previous experiences had been with French traders who paid the isolated tribes what was thought to be a lot of money.

[The Sage of Main Street]

And Iraq, Afghanistan are better in what way.

I think you may be confusing our purpose with who they were.
We seem to be very good about going where we shouldn't by some accounts and not going where we should by others. The others are the same class of incompetent bluebloods and brown-noses who get ahead everywhere in this upside-down society. None of the others suggest that we partition Muslim OPEC and bankrupt the jihad. It's the only way.

[Stoney]

That is not a helpful comment.
It should have been.