quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I always wondered how a rich, powerful nation could be isolationist, particularly with increasingly globalization where the Atlantic and Pacific aren't these huge barriers.  Too many global connections, you know?  We trade all around the freaking world for just about anything (how much of what anyone uses is made in the US these days, anyhow?), corpations are going international, the net's integrating societies, travel's becoming increasily cheaper (I don't care about gas prices or airline tickets- they're just instances of temporarily countering the overall trend), languages are unifying (who here seriously believes that, in 300 years, there will be more than two or three languages, tops?).

Isolation, at this point, just isn't possible.  Even if it were, who would have it?  Political isolation would imply economic and social isolation, neither of which are going to happen.

edited to add reread your post, and I'm not sure you are implying what I thought you were implying initially, which was that Ron Paul, was an isolationist, or rather that his presidency would lead to such. Ignore the rant below if I misinterpretted. It is unclear now what your position is in that regard. The below applies to people that say his viewpoints are isolationist.

I think your all off in your viewpoints, summed up in the last line. With that logic, every modern day industrialized nation would have to have a proportionally vast military prescence around the world in order to trade, and talk. Obviously, that is not the case, we are unique in the present day world in regards to military might and use thereof, not the norm, and the norm economicly is other countries trade with each other and cooperate. Does Germany trade with us because of our military base there, No. Does the UK trade with us because of the military, No. Who trades with us because of our military threat. No body, well, other than those buying weapons from us to destroy their neighbors, LOL.

I do not understand the logic that pulling back a military(a establishment purely meant and designed to destroy shit), is equivalent to isolationism. It's not even the same thing. And if we actually got attacked, (we do have 9/11 as an example),  everyone seems to want to help, it is only when we attack(Iraq, without real reasons), that we need this huge military apparatus that allows us to strike anywhere without anyone elses cooperation.

Again, Ron Paul, never said he wants to be an isolationist, that is fox,cnn, msnbc, etc... spin on not wanting to attack every country that disagrees with us. It's quite insane, how quickly lies absorb into the psyche as truth once repeated often enough. So, that handles the military aspect.

If you are also refering to Him not wanting to give foreign aid. Well, that is not trade, nor does every nation that trades, and talks and cooperates receive foreign aid from the other. It's not a right to receive foreign dollars, and many argue it is a curse, to the receiving country.

Anyhow, Neither reduced Military, nor reduced foreign aid, translates to isolationist. Isolationist, would be oh, I don't know, going to war based on lies, as the rest of the world disagrees that it is even necessary. I'd say that is a sure way to isolate yourself in the long run. Or a quick way to create enemies would be  to  selectively give money and arms to certain countries, and claim at the same time to be nuetral, and become suprised, when the enemies of those nations that received that money, and weapons don't like us. LOL. Yeah, we are really basking in the benefits here, of this foreign policy many are endorsing(stay the course type logic). This policy isn't unique to Bush Jr. either, Clinton did the same, though not as blatant as Iraq, and bushes father before him. Reagan was justified in some regards because of the Soviet threat. Unless one is arguing that "terrorism" is on the same level as the "Soviet" potential threat of the past, then we do not need this anymore. That is why we needed all those bases, and whatnot, because a real nation, with a real army, and real nukes, and real power, and real production capacity, and real resources, was a potential war enemy. Now, we have an enemy, with no nation, no real army, no nukes, no real power, no production capacity, loosely supported by a few nations, with almost nothing themselves. And we are trying to fight that enemy using the same methods. Quite frankly it is a complete waste of money, time, and life, not to mention goodwill. IMO.