FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > America
America
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo? "
It’s an interesting concept, as given that so much of American manufacturing is outsourced to Mexico or China, what would that mean for the general population? Would it mean a version of self-sufficiency and the closure of imports and exports and by extension borders? Would manufacturing begin again in states that have closed down heavy industries like steel making and what would that do for climate issues? Geopolitically I can see benefits for a country as big as the USA but then I also wonder if the USA is too big for its own good? I think the thing that would do the most good is getting rid of the philibuster and stopping the republicans from redrawing the electoral map in their favour. I am just a limey though  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Like WW1 and WW2..
You'll get dragged into WW3 so best stick with us now and hopefully it'll turn out OK.."
Pretty much everyone at our house are veterans and current active duty. They will do their duty but they get vilified all over the world. They understand their patriotic duty . It's strange. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
Like Trump's bring it home..
DeWalt tool reviews from USA crack me up. Sticker with big USA Flag with the words "Made in the USA" then in teeny small print "from global components".
Looks good but says everything. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
It’s an interesting concept, as given that so much of American manufacturing is outsourced to Mexico or China, what would that mean for the general population? Would it mean a version of self-sufficiency and the closure of imports and exports and by extension borders? Would manufacturing begin again in states that have closed down heavy industries like steel making and what would that do for climate issues? Geopolitically I can see benefits for a country as big as the USA but then I also wonder if the USA is too big for its own good? I think the thing that would do the most good is getting rid of the philibuster and stopping the republicans from redrawing the electoral map in their favour. I am just a limey though "
States deciding their own destinies according to the constitution is not the topic.. it's a global effect. This is us . Again stay on topic. Do we just say screw it you on your own? Simples answer yes or no? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
It’s an interesting concept, as given that so much of American manufacturing is outsourced to Mexico or China, what would that mean for the general population? Would it mean a version of self-sufficiency and the closure of imports and exports and by extension borders? Would manufacturing begin again in states that have closed down heavy industries like steel making and what would that do for climate issues? Geopolitically I can see benefits for a country as big as the USA but then I also wonder if the USA is too big for its own good? I think the thing that would do the most good is getting rid of the philibuster and stopping the republicans from redrawing the electoral map in their favour. I am just a limey though
States deciding their own destinies according to the constitution is not the topic.. it's a global effect. This is us . Again stay on topic. Do we just say screw it you on your own? Simples answer yes or no?"
the only reason we got involved into ww2 was because of Japan bombing pearl.. so why do other nations need our support? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
It’s an interesting concept, as given that so much of American manufacturing is outsourced to Mexico or China, what would that mean for the general population? Would it mean a version of self-sufficiency and the closure of imports and exports and by extension borders? Would manufacturing begin again in states that have closed down heavy industries like steel making and what would that do for climate issues? Geopolitically I can see benefits for a country as big as the USA but then I also wonder if the USA is too big for its own good? I think the thing that would do the most good is getting rid of the philibuster and stopping the republicans from redrawing the electoral map in their favour. I am just a limey though
States deciding their own destinies according to the constitution is not the topic.. it's a global effect. This is us . Again stay on topic. Do we just say screw it you on your own? Simples answer yes or no? the only reason we got involved into ww2 was because of Japan bombing pearl.. so why do other nations need our support? "
Clearly alot of more wars fought by on European soil. Here we go again... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo? "
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale..."
You still haven't answered the question you skirting around it. A simple yes or no is the question. Not that hard to analyze it. Let me repeat . Do we need to be a isolated country it's not like we can't survive on our own or do we stay on a global stage ? Yes or no? We have resources to make it do you ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale...
You still haven't answered the question you skirting around it. A simple yes or no is the question. Not that hard to analyze it. Let me repeat . Do we need to be a isolated country it's not like we can't survive on our own or do we stay on a global stage ? Yes or no? We have resources to make it do you ?"
As I've stated already, the USA trying to isolate from the world has historically worked out badly both within the country and without.
Economics and geopolitics dictate that. Instead of influencing global events in a positive way, things happen to you.
I'm not "skirting around" anything.
The USA' global engagement can be as substantial or as minimal as you wish it to be so it's not a sensible referendum question which is what you are making it. Not sure why the USA would set its ambition as "surviving"? The USA has some resources and not others. Britain has claimed it will be "global" post-Brexit whilst removing ourselves from an organisation with adequate scale to remain globally possible.
It is, actually, quite a complicated topic and very hard to analyse. Why would anyone think that domestic and geopolitics were simple and be solved with one "simple" policy decision? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo? "
It's a global world and we are all inter-connected and dependent on each other. Together we prevail. Together we lift ourselves and our allies. We support each other. Strength in unity.
So no, I do not support isolationism. You'd end up like North Korea. Not shaping the world, but not part of it either.
We're allies. We share aligned values. It's our job to aid other countries and lift them up too to achieve the same freedoms we enjoy. We must not turn a blind eye to oppression and injustice. That makes us complicit.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale...
You still haven't answered the question you skirting around it. A simple yes or no is the question. Not that hard to analyze it. Let me repeat . Do we need to be a isolated country it's not like we can't survive on our own or do we stay on a global stage ? Yes or no? We have resources to make it do you ?
As I've stated already, the USA trying to isolate from the world has historically worked out badly both within the country and without.
Economics and geopolitics dictate that. Instead of influencing global events in a positive way, things happen to you.
I'm not "skirting around" anything.
The USA' global engagement can be as substantial or as minimal as you wish it to be so it's not a sensible referendum question which is what you are making it. Not sure why the USA would set its ambition as "surviving"? The USA has some resources and not others. Britain has claimed it will be "global" post-Brexit whilst removing ourselves from an organisation with adequate scale to remain globally possible.
It is, actually, quite a complicated topic and very hard to analyse. Why would anyone think that domestic and geopolitics were simple and be solved with one "simple" policy decision?"
It is a geopolitical issue .our standards of living is totally different than Europe standards. Yet we as a nation have to be the world's police. Yet other countries are the reason for that. Ww3 can break out at any moment . Do we defend euro interests or just fall back and let you all deal with the consequences. Kind of hard to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific to invade us. Ok see you bashing is for our standard of living. Yet here we are being the euro police. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Explain why we have to ? Yet we project our interests on a geopolitical scale and we are the villains. "
Trump's message resonated.. America first..scary right? But the message was carried by a idiot but that message is still there. You will see it at midterms. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale...
You still haven't answered the question you skirting around it. A simple yes or no is the question. Not that hard to analyze it. Let me repeat . Do we need to be a isolated country it's not like we can't survive on our own or do we stay on a global stage ? Yes or no? We have resources to make it do you ?
As I've stated already, the USA trying to isolate from the world has historically worked out badly both within the country and without.
Economics and geopolitics dictate that. Instead of influencing global events in a positive way, things happen to you.
I'm not "skirting around" anything.
The USA' global engagement can be as substantial or as minimal as you wish it to be so it's not a sensible referendum question which is what you are making it. Not sure why the USA would set its ambition as "surviving"? The USA has some resources and not others. Britain has claimed it will be "global" post-Brexit whilst removing ourselves from an organisation with adequate scale to remain globally possible.
It is, actually, quite a complicated topic and very hard to analyse. Why would anyone think that domestic and geopolitics were simple and be solved with one "simple" policy decision?
It is a geopolitical issue .our standards of living is totally different than Europe standards. Yet we as a nation have to be the world's police. Yet other countries are the reason for that. Ww3 can break out at any moment . Do we defend euro interests or just fall back and let you all deal with the consequences. Kind of hard to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific to invade us. Ok see you bashing is for our standard of living. Yet here we are being the euro police."
Who said that the USA "had" to be the world's police? You chose to be?
Military conflict is not the only way to be globally engaged.
If WW3 breaks out, do you think that you will remain isolated forever?
Again, why would you just want to "survive" on your own resources without external engagement in commerce and culture which has made the USA and the rest of the world significantly wealthier?
Zero idea what you are talking about with respect to your standard of living. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo? "
Who specifically is calling for this from any authority? Maybe its a thing, but its entirely passed me by if its gotten any widespread traction. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo? I do think we can stay isolated unless there is a nuke. What country can take the US population again conventional warfare wise? But you yet to answer my question of yes or no. Yes to isolate or no be more engaged in global affairs.Its a simple equation. You know big bad US starting all these wars. Enlightened me .Yes or no is the only contribution it is a Simplistic answer don't you agree?
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale...
You still haven't answered the question you skirting around it. A simple yes or no is the question. Not that hard to analyze it. Let me repeat . Do we need to be a isolated country it's not like we can't survive on our own or do we stay on a global stage ? Yes or no? We have resources to make it do you ?
As I've stated already, the USA trying to isolate from the world has historically worked out badly both within the country and without.
Economics and geopolitics dictate that. Instead of influencing global events in a positive way, things happen to you.
I'm not "skirting around" anything.
The USA' global engagement can be as substantial or as minimal as you wish it to be so it's not a sensible referendum question which is what you are making it. Not sure why the USA would set its ambition as "surviving"? The USA has some resources and not others. Britain has claimed it will be "global" post-Brexit whilst removing ourselves from an organisation with adequate scale to remain globally possible.
It is, actually, quite a complicated topic and very hard to analyse. Why would anyone think that domestic and geopolitics were simple and be solved with one "simple" policy decision?
It is a geopolitical issue .our standards of living is totally different than Europe standards. Yet we as a nation have to be the world's police. Yet other countries are the reason for that. Ww3 can break out at any moment . Do we defend euro interests or just fall back and let you all deal with the consequences. Kind of hard to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific to invade us. Ok see you bashing is for our standard of living. Yet here we are being the euro police.
Who said that the USA "had" to be the world's police? You chose to be?
Military conflict is not the only way to be globally engaged.
If WW3 breaks out, do you think that you will remain isolated forever?
Again, why would you just want to "survive" on your own resources without external engagement in commerce and culture which has made the USA and the rest of the world significantly wealthier?
Zero idea what you are talking about with respect to your standard of living."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale...
You still haven't answered the question you skirting around it. A simple yes or no is the question. Not that hard to analyze it. Let me repeat . Do we need to be a isolated country it's not like we can't survive on our own or do we stay on a global stage ? Yes or no? We have resources to make it do you ?
As I've stated already, the USA trying to isolate from the world has historically worked out badly both within the country and without.
Economics and geopolitics dictate that. Instead of influencing global events in a positive way, things happen to you.
I'm not "skirting around" anything.
The USA' global engagement can be as substantial or as minimal as you wish it to be so it's not a sensible referendum question which is what you are making it. Not sure why the USA would set its ambition as "surviving"? The USA has some resources and not others. Britain has claimed it will be "global" post-Brexit whilst removing ourselves from an organisation with adequate scale to remain globally possible.
It is, actually, quite a complicated topic and very hard to analyse. Why would anyone think that domestic and geopolitics were simple and be solved with one "simple" policy decision?
It is a geopolitical issue .our standards of living is totally different than Europe standards. Yet we as a nation have to be the world's police. Yet other countries are the reason for that. Ww3 can break out at any moment . Do we defend euro interests or just fall back and let you all deal with the consequences. Kind of hard to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific to invade us. Ok see you bashing is for our standard of living. Yet here we are being the euro police.
Who said that the USA "had" to be the world's police? You chose to be?
Military conflict is not the only way to be globally engaged.
If WW3 breaks out, do you think that you will remain isolated forever?
Again, why would you just want to "survive" on your own resources without external engagement in commerce and culture which has made the USA and the rest of the world significantly wealthier?
Zero idea what you are talking about with respect to your standard of living."
Did we need the external commerce pre ww2? Name one domestic product we can't produce for our population. I'll wait. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale...
You still haven't answered the question you skirting around it. A simple yes or no is the question. Not that hard to analyze it. Let me repeat . Do we need to be a isolated country it's not like we can't survive on our own or do we stay on a global stage ? Yes or no? We have resources to make it do you ?
As I've stated already, the USA trying to isolate from the world has historically worked out badly both within the country and without.
Economics and geopolitics dictate that. Instead of influencing global events in a positive way, things happen to you.
I'm not "skirting around" anything.
The USA' global engagement can be as substantial or as minimal as you wish it to be so it's not a sensible referendum question which is what you are making it. Not sure why the USA would set its ambition as "surviving"? The USA has some resources and not others. Britain has claimed it will be "global" post-Brexit whilst removing ourselves from an organisation with adequate scale to remain globally possible.
It is, actually, quite a complicated topic and very hard to analyse. Why would anyone think that domestic and geopolitics were simple and be solved with one "simple" policy decision?
It is a geopolitical issue .our standards of living is totally different than Europe standards. Yet we as a nation have to be the world's police. Yet other countries are the reason for that. Ww3 can break out at any moment . Do we defend euro interests or just fall back and let you all deal with the consequences. Kind of hard to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific to invade us. Ok see you bashing is for our standard of living. Yet here we are being the euro police.
Who said that the USA "had" to be the world's police? You chose to be?
Military conflict is not the only way to be globally engaged.
If WW3 breaks out, do you think that you will remain isolated forever?
Again, why would you just want to "survive" on your own resources without external engagement in commerce and culture which has made the USA and the rest of the world significantly wealthier?
Zero idea what you are talking about with respect to your standard of living. Did we need the external commerce pre ww2? Name one domestic product we can't produce for our population. I'll wait."
Whisky
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale...
You still haven't answered the question you skirting around it. A simple yes or no is the question. Not that hard to analyze it. Let me repeat . Do we need to be a isolated country it's not like we can't survive on our own or do we stay on a global stage ? Yes or no? We have resources to make it do you ?
As I've stated already, the USA trying to isolate from the world has historically worked out badly both within the country and without.
Economics and geopolitics dictate that. Instead of influencing global events in a positive way, things happen to you.
I'm not "skirting around" anything.
The USA' global engagement can be as substantial or as minimal as you wish it to be so it's not a sensible referendum question which is what you are making it. Not sure why the USA would set its ambition as "surviving"? The USA has some resources and not others. Britain has claimed it will be "global" post-Brexit whilst removing ourselves from an organisation with adequate scale to remain globally possible.
It is, actually, quite a complicated topic and very hard to analyse. Why would anyone think that domestic and geopolitics were simple and be solved with one "simple" policy decision?
It is a geopolitical issue .our standards of living is totally different than Europe standards. Yet we as a nation have to be the world's police. Yet other countries are the reason for that. Ww3 can break out at any moment . Do we defend euro interests or just fall back and let you all deal with the consequences. Kind of hard to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific to invade us. Ok see you bashing is for our standard of living. Yet here we are being the euro police.
Who said that the USA "had" to be the world's police? You chose to be?
Military conflict is not the only way to be globally engaged.
If WW3 breaks out, do you think that you will remain isolated forever?
Again, why would you just want to "survive" on your own resources without external engagement in commerce and culture which has made the USA and the rest of the world significantly wealthier?
Zero idea what you are talking about with respect to your standard of living. Did we need the external commerce pre ww2? Name one domestic product we can't produce for our population. I'll wait.
Whisky
"
. Kentucky bourbon |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Whisky
. Kentucky bourbon "
Whiskey =/= Whisky. Theres a Huuuge difference in that missing E.
Just like any of the thousands of other PDO products made all over the world. Theres no shortage of things you cant "make" in America.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
Whisky
. Kentucky bourbon
Whiskey =/= Whisky. Theres a Huuuge difference in that missing E.
Just like any of the thousands of other PDO products made all over the world. Theres no shortage of things you cant "make" in America.
"
exactly and we sitting on the biggest oil reserves on the planet untouched. So everyone on a geopolitical scale gets to suffer because of geo politics. We better off on our own. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Whisky
. Kentucky bourbon
Whiskey =/= Whisky. Theres a Huuuge difference in that missing E.
Just like any of the thousands of other PDO products made all over the world. Theres no shortage of things you cant "make" in America.
exactly and we sitting on the biggest oil reserves on the planet untouched. So everyone on a geopolitical scale gets to suffer because of geo politics. We better off on our own."
1. Even pretending that was true, What does it have to do with you being wrong about there being nothing america cant produce for itself?
2. No youre not. Dont be so stupid. Whoever told you that isnt your friend and specifically wanted you to repeat that so you would embarrass yourself. Pick better friends.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Isolationism is Stupid, Americans who think like that are dumb.
Every time someone says it, It’s like supporting the commies in China, Putin in Russia, practically every tyrant gets a massive hard on, when Americans of this ilk get all separatist.
So the question is this, do you want countries like the ones mentioned above to piss on your face?
If not, stop talking this insanity, come to your senses, and do your duty supporting your country instead of wanting to destroy it from within. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
What experience of the world have you had by which I mean have you travelled much and formed any of your thinking based on where you have been and what you have seen or is your thinking totally formed from living in the USA? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale...
You still haven't answered the question you skirting around it. A simple yes or no is the question. Not that hard to analyze it. Let me repeat . Do we need to be a isolated country it's not like we can't survive on our own or do we stay on a global stage ? Yes or no? We have resources to make it do you ?
As I've stated already, the USA trying to isolate from the world has historically worked out badly both within the country and without.
Economics and geopolitics dictate that. Instead of influencing global events in a positive way, things happen to you.
I'm not "skirting around" anything.
The USA' global engagement can be as substantial or as minimal as you wish it to be so it's not a sensible referendum question which is what you are making it. Not sure why the USA would set its ambition as "surviving"? The USA has some resources and not others. Britain has claimed it will be "global" post-Brexit whilst removing ourselves from an organisation with adequate scale to remain globally possible.
It is, actually, quite a complicated topic and very hard to analyse. Why would anyone think that domestic and geopolitics were simple and be solved with one "simple" policy decision?
It is a geopolitical issue .our standards of living is totally different than Europe standards. Yet we as a nation have to be the world's police. Yet other countries are the reason for that. Ww3 can break out at any moment . Do we defend euro interests or just fall back and let you all deal with the consequences. Kind of hard to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific to invade us. Ok see you bashing is for our standard of living. Yet here we are being the euro police.
Who said that the USA "had" to be the world's police? You chose to be?
Military conflict is not the only way to be globally engaged.
If WW3 breaks out, do you think that you will remain isolated forever?
Again, why would you just want to "survive" on your own resources without external engagement in commerce and culture which has made the USA and the rest of the world significantly wealthier?
Zero idea what you are talking about with respect to your standard of living. Did we need the external commerce pre ww2? Name one domestic product we can't produce for our population. I'll wait."
Anything with lithium and tantalum needed. 
Happy 4th July weekend |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Being isolated like north korea..no. Military speaking it hasn't really worked out being the world police.. all sorts of unexpected results happen when interveaning.
As a country you'd need to trade.. yes youve got bourbon so don't need Scottish whisky etc but one thing you American chaps lack geologically is titanium if memory serves |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale...
You still haven't answered the question you skirting around it. A simple yes or no is the question. Not that hard to analyze it. Let me repeat . Do we need to be a isolated country it's not like we can't survive on our own or do we stay on a global stage ? Yes or no? We have resources to make it do you ?
As I've stated already, the USA trying to isolate from the world has historically worked out badly both within the country and without.
Economics and geopolitics dictate that. Instead of influencing global events in a positive way, things happen to you.
I'm not "skirting around" anything.
The USA' global engagement can be as substantial or as minimal as you wish it to be so it's not a sensible referendum question which is what you are making it. Not sure why the USA would set its ambition as "surviving"? The USA has some resources and not others. Britain has claimed it will be "global" post-Brexit whilst removing ourselves from an organisation with adequate scale to remain globally possible.
It is, actually, quite a complicated topic and very hard to analyse. Why would anyone think that domestic and geopolitics were simple and be solved with one "simple" policy decision?
It is a geopolitical issue .our standards of living is totally different than Europe standards. Yet we as a nation have to be the world's police. Yet other countries are the reason for that. Ww3 can break out at any moment . Do we defend euro interests or just fall back and let you all deal with the consequences. Kind of hard to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific to invade us. Ok see you bashing is for our standard of living. Yet here we are being the euro police.
Who said that the USA "had" to be the world's police? You chose to be?
Military conflict is not the only way to be globally engaged.
If WW3 breaks out, do you think that you will remain isolated forever?
Again, why would you just want to "survive" on your own resources without external engagement in commerce and culture which has made the USA and the rest of the world significantly wealthier?
Zero idea what you are talking about with respect to your standard of living. Did we need the external commerce pre ww2? Name one domestic product we can't produce for our population. I'll wait."
Need?
Are those your aspirations?
Trade makes everyone wealthier and provides more choice.
Do you think that the USA has a monopoly on innovation and new products and technologies? Clever people and natural and advanced manufacturing resources?
Trade requires reciprocity.
Do you believe that keeping out foreign products benefits American consumers? Do you think that it allows them access to the best products or gives them better value for money? Do you not think competition with the best is healthy?
You can't make iPhones.
Global trade, comparative advantage and economies of scale will require some reading on your part.
Cooperation brings many advantages. Foreign policy is the international equivalent of networking.
Government to government relationships pave the way for business.
There is overreach in many areas and competition from foreign powers with far less laissez-faire attitudes.
How you choose to exercise power and influence is up to individual states which can make good or bad decisions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo? "
I believe a type 1 civilisation is the future of the planet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
what we are seeing here is the start of the break up of the states through the legal system. california are leading a number of states who are seeking to remove themselves from the increasingly aparthaid federal state where an ever decreasing number of christian militarist fundamentalists have managed to seize power in a desperate attempt to inflict their backward ideologies onto the majority. we can only hope that california et al manage to accomplish this before things get messy.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"what we are seeing here is the start of the break up of the states through the legal system. california are leading a number of states who are seeking to remove themselves from the increasingly aparthaid federal state where an ever decreasing number of christian militarist fundamentalists have managed to seize power in a desperate attempt to inflict their backward ideologies onto the majority. we can only hope that california et al manage to accomplish this before things get messy. "
Lol California is a state that people are fleeing from because of their policies.Same for New York same for Illinois. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"what we are seeing here is the start of the break up of the states through the legal system. california are leading a number of states who are seeking to remove themselves from the increasingly aparthaid federal state where an ever decreasing number of christian militarist fundamentalists have managed to seize power in a desperate attempt to inflict their backward ideologies onto the majority. we can only hope that california et al manage to accomplish this before things get messy.
Lol California is a state that people are fleeing from because of their policies.Same for New York same for Illinois."
That seems to be a very superficial reading of what is happening in both California and New York. Illinois I know little about.
Both California and New York are very densely populated with average incomes very high. Both consequences of economic success.
With population density comes heavy demands on the environment which requires strong legislation to prevent problems. High population density also requires sharply more spending on the bureaucracy and services associated with managing so many people. From healthcare to policing.
Cost of living leads to population movement, even if just across a state border.
Corporate tax policy leads to companies relocating. However, at some point those taxes will have to rise to pay for an influx of new people and demands in the new state. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"what we are seeing here is the start of the break up of the states through the legal system. california are leading a number of states who are seeking to remove themselves from the increasingly aparthaid federal state where an ever decreasing number of christian militarist fundamentalists have managed to seize power in a desperate attempt to inflict their backward ideologies onto the majority. we can only hope that california et al manage to accomplish this before things get messy. "
Sadly for the US, we do seem to be seeing a similar split in the country to the lines of their civil war. The reasons are not that different either. A conservative/liberal split.
However, with the partisan election map, the conservative states are far more liberal than the map an laws would indicate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale...
You still haven't answered the question you skirting around it. A simple yes or no is the question. Not that hard to analyze it. Let me repeat . Do we need to be a isolated country it's not like we can't survive on our own or do we stay on a global stage ? Yes or no? We have resources to make it do you ?
As I've stated already, the USA trying to isolate from the world has historically worked out badly both within the country and without.
Economics and geopolitics dictate that. Instead of influencing global events in a positive way, things happen to you.
I'm not "skirting around" anything.
The USA' global engagement can be as substantial or as minimal as you wish it to be so it's not a sensible referendum question which is what you are making it. Not sure why the USA would set its ambition as "surviving"? The USA has some resources and not others. Britain has claimed it will be "global" post-Brexit whilst removing ourselves from an organisation with adequate scale to remain globally possible.
It is, actually, quite a complicated topic and very hard to analyse. Why would anyone think that domestic and geopolitics were simple and be solved with one "simple" policy decision?
It is a geopolitical issue .our standards of living is totally different than Europe standards. Yet we as a nation have to be the world's police. Yet other countries are the reason for that. Ww3 can break out at any moment . Do we defend euro interests or just fall back and let you all deal with the consequences. Kind of hard to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific to invade us. Ok see you bashing is for our standard of living. Yet here we are being the euro police."
I think you will always be needed as the world police tbh I can’t see any other country taking that role in Europe need you more now than we have since ww2 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale...
You still haven't answered the question you skirting around it. A simple yes or no is the question. Not that hard to analyze it. Let me repeat . Do we need to be a isolated country it's not like we can't survive on our own or do we stay on a global stage ? Yes or no? We have resources to make it do you ?
As I've stated already, the USA trying to isolate from the world has historically worked out badly both within the country and without.
Economics and geopolitics dictate that. Instead of influencing global events in a positive way, things happen to you.
I'm not "skirting around" anything.
The USA' global engagement can be as substantial or as minimal as you wish it to be so it's not a sensible referendum question which is what you are making it. Not sure why the USA would set its ambition as "surviving"? The USA has some resources and not others. Britain has claimed it will be "global" post-Brexit whilst removing ourselves from an organisation with adequate scale to remain globally possible.
It is, actually, quite a complicated topic and very hard to analyse. Why would anyone think that domestic and geopolitics were simple and be solved with one "simple" policy decision?
It is a geopolitical issue .our standards of living is totally different than Europe standards. Yet we as a nation have to be the world's police. Yet other countries are the reason for that. Ww3 can break out at any moment . Do we defend euro interests or just fall back and let you all deal with the consequences. Kind of hard to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific to invade us. Ok see you bashing is for our standard of living. Yet here we are being the euro police. I think you will always be needed as the world police tbh I can’t see any other country taking that role in Europe need you more now than we have since ww2 "
Really? Even "global" Britain "punching above its weight"?
Are you saying that we need to be a client state of the US now more than ever?
The Trump administration did force the EU to view the US as an unreliable ally and already lead to increased military spending and closer European operational collaboration. This has played its part in pulling Sweden and Finland closer.
NATO does allow the US to push its military border out across the Atlantic, but that does come with a price.
US intervention based on politics rather than strategic policy has been a problem. It is a rich and powerful country with broadly benign societal views so it has always been on its own interests to be involved and it lends weight to any position.
The US is not needed as a global policeman, but it's interventions are hugely consequential for good or ill. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale...
You still haven't answered the question you skirting around it. A simple yes or no is the question. Not that hard to analyze it. Let me repeat . Do we need to be a isolated country it's not like we can't survive on our own or do we stay on a global stage ? Yes or no? We have resources to make it do you ?
As I've stated already, the USA trying to isolate from the world has historically worked out badly both within the country and without.
Economics and geopolitics dictate that. Instead of influencing global events in a positive way, things happen to you.
I'm not "skirting around" anything.
The USA' global engagement can be as substantial or as minimal as you wish it to be so it's not a sensible referendum question which is what you are making it. Not sure why the USA would set its ambition as "surviving"? The USA has some resources and not others. Britain has claimed it will be "global" post-Brexit whilst removing ourselves from an organisation with adequate scale to remain globally possible.
It is, actually, quite a complicated topic and very hard to analyse. Why would anyone think that domestic and geopolitics were simple and be solved with one "simple" policy decision?
It is a geopolitical issue .our standards of living is totally different than Europe standards. Yet we as a nation have to be the world's police. Yet other countries are the reason for that. Ww3 can break out at any moment . Do we defend euro interests or just fall back and let you all deal with the consequences. Kind of hard to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific to invade us. Ok see you bashing is for our standard of living. Yet here we are being the euro police. I think you will always be needed as the world police tbh I can’t see any other country taking that role in Europe need you more now than we have since ww2
Really? Even "global" Britain "punching above its weight"?
Are you saying that we need to be a client state of the US now more than ever?
The Trump administration did force the EU to view the US as an unreliable ally and already lead to increased military spending and closer European operational collaboration. This has played its part in pulling Sweden and Finland closer.
NATO does allow the US to push its military border out across the Atlantic, but that does come with a price.
US intervention based on politics rather than strategic policy has been a problem. It is a rich and powerful country with broadly benign societal views so it has always been on its own interests to be involved and it lends weight to any position.
The US is not needed as a global policeman, but it's interventions are hugely consequential for good or ill."
it’s not needed as a global policeman Okies so who can fill there boots ? If anything kicks of in Europe who will they first ask for help ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale...
You still haven't answered the question you skirting around it. A simple yes or no is the question. Not that hard to analyze it. Let me repeat . Do we need to be a isolated country it's not like we can't survive on our own or do we stay on a global stage ? Yes or no? We have resources to make it do you ?
As I've stated already, the USA trying to isolate from the world has historically worked out badly both within the country and without.
Economics and geopolitics dictate that. Instead of influencing global events in a positive way, things happen to you.
I'm not "skirting around" anything.
The USA' global engagement can be as substantial or as minimal as you wish it to be so it's not a sensible referendum question which is what you are making it. Not sure why the USA would set its ambition as "surviving"? The USA has some resources and not others. Britain has claimed it will be "global" post-Brexit whilst removing ourselves from an organisation with adequate scale to remain globally possible.
It is, actually, quite a complicated topic and very hard to analyse. Why would anyone think that domestic and geopolitics were simple and be solved with one "simple" policy decision?
It is a geopolitical issue .our standards of living is totally different than Europe standards. Yet we as a nation have to be the world's police. Yet other countries are the reason for that. Ww3 can break out at any moment . Do we defend euro interests or just fall back and let you all deal with the consequences. Kind of hard to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific to invade us. Ok see you bashing is for our standard of living. Yet here we are being the euro police. I think you will always be needed as the world police tbh I can’t see any other country taking that role in Europe need you more now than we have since ww2
Really? Even "global" Britain "punching above its weight"?
Are you saying that we need to be a client state of the US now more than ever?
The Trump administration did force the EU to view the US as an unreliable ally and already lead to increased military spending and closer European operational collaboration. This has played its part in pulling Sweden and Finland closer.
NATO does allow the US to push its military border out across the Atlantic, but that does come with a price.
US intervention based on politics rather than strategic policy has been a problem. It is a rich and powerful country with broadly benign societal views so it has always been on its own interests to be involved and it lends weight to any position.
The US is not needed as a global policeman, but it's interventions are hugely consequential for good or ill.it’s not needed as a global policeman Okies so who can fill there boots ? If anything kicks of in Europe who will they first ask for help ?"
Ghostbusters..? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Did we need the external commerce pre ww2? Name one domestic product we can't produce for our population. I'll wait."
1. It's the 21st Century.
2. You are making the argument that the USA can sustain its economy without importing anything.
That assertion alone, proves how deeply dim and uninformed you are.
As you mentioned, earlier, you and all your friends have that military connection; which, particularly in Americans, accounts for a lack of imagination, critical thinking and able to grasp anything more complicated than the use of force.
Indeed, for your generation, your parents failed in Vietnam and you failed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, in answer to your question about just leaving us to get on with it ...
don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Did we need the external commerce pre ww2? Name one domestic product we can't produce for our population. I'll wait.
1. It's the 21st Century.
2. You are making the argument that the USA can sustain its economy without importing anything.
That assertion alone, proves how deeply dim and uninformed you are.
As you mentioned, earlier, you and all your friends have that military connection; which, particularly in Americans, accounts for a lack of imagination, critical thinking and able to grasp anything more complicated than the use of force.
Indeed, for your generation, your parents failed in Vietnam and you failed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, in answer to your question about just leaving us to get on with it ...
don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out."
That seemed overly hostile.
I would agree that it feels like the thinking stops at not looking beyond a certain point. Everyone does that.
A hostile response doesn't help though. Thinking a little narrowly is not about being "dim" it's about too tight a focus on one issue or period in time. Often. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale...
You still haven't answered the question you skirting around it. A simple yes or no is the question. Not that hard to analyze it. Let me repeat . Do we need to be a isolated country it's not like we can't survive on our own or do we stay on a global stage ? Yes or no? We have resources to make it do you ?
As I've stated already, the USA trying to isolate from the world has historically worked out badly both within the country and without.
Economics and geopolitics dictate that. Instead of influencing global events in a positive way, things happen to you.
I'm not "skirting around" anything.
The USA' global engagement can be as substantial or as minimal as you wish it to be so it's not a sensible referendum question which is what you are making it. Not sure why the USA would set its ambition as "surviving"? The USA has some resources and not others. Britain has claimed it will be "global" post-Brexit whilst removing ourselves from an organisation with adequate scale to remain globally possible.
It is, actually, quite a complicated topic and very hard to analyse. Why would anyone think that domestic and geopolitics were simple and be solved with one "simple" policy decision?
It is a geopolitical issue .our standards of living is totally different than Europe standards. Yet we as a nation have to be the world's police. Yet other countries are the reason for that. Ww3 can break out at any moment . Do we defend euro interests or just fall back and let you all deal with the consequences. Kind of hard to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific to invade us. Ok see you bashing is for our standard of living. Yet here we are being the euro police. I think you will always be needed as the world police tbh I can’t see any other country taking that role in Europe need you more now than we have since ww2
Really? Even "global" Britain "punching above its weight"?
Are you saying that we need to be a client state of the US now more than ever?
The Trump administration did force the EU to view the US as an unreliable ally and already lead to increased military spending and closer European operational collaboration. This has played its part in pulling Sweden and Finland closer.
NATO does allow the US to push its military border out across the Atlantic, but that does come with a price.
US intervention based on politics rather than strategic policy has been a problem. It is a rich and powerful country with broadly benign societal views so it has always been on its own interests to be involved and it lends weight to any position.
The US is not needed as a global policeman, but it's interventions are hugely consequential for good or ill.it’s not needed as a global policeman Okies so who can fill there boots ? If anything kicks of in Europe who will they first ask for help ?"
Why does the world need "a policeman"?
It needs a broad consensus and collective action. That creates legitimacy. Something that a police force needs. Arbitrary action by a single stage creates its own problems even if we'll intentioned. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale...
You still haven't answered the question you skirting around it. A simple yes or no is the question. Not that hard to analyze it. Let me repeat . Do we need to be a isolated country it's not like we can't survive on our own or do we stay on a global stage ? Yes or no? We have resources to make it do you ?
As I've stated already, the USA trying to isolate from the world has historically worked out badly both within the country and without.
Economics and geopolitics dictate that. Instead of influencing global events in a positive way, things happen to you.
I'm not "skirting around" anything.
The USA' global engagement can be as substantial or as minimal as you wish it to be so it's not a sensible referendum question which is what you are making it. Not sure why the USA would set its ambition as "surviving"? The USA has some resources and not others. Britain has claimed it will be "global" post-Brexit whilst removing ourselves from an organisation with adequate scale to remain globally possible.
It is, actually, quite a complicated topic and very hard to analyse. Why would anyone think that domestic and geopolitics were simple and be solved with one "simple" policy decision?
It is a geopolitical issue .our standards of living is totally different than Europe standards. Yet we as a nation have to be the world's police. Yet other countries are the reason for that. Ww3 can break out at any moment . Do we defend euro interests or just fall back and let you all deal with the consequences. Kind of hard to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific to invade us. Ok see you bashing is for our standard of living. Yet here we are being the euro police. I think you will always be needed as the world police tbh I can’t see any other country taking that role in Europe need you more now than we have since ww2
Really? Even "global" Britain "punching above its weight"?
Are you saying that we need to be a client state of the US now more than ever?
The Trump administration did force the EU to view the US as an unreliable ally and already lead to increased military spending and closer European operational collaboration. This has played its part in pulling Sweden and Finland closer.
NATO does allow the US to push its military border out across the Atlantic, but that does come with a price.
US intervention based on politics rather than strategic policy has been a problem. It is a rich and powerful country with broadly benign societal views so it has always been on its own interests to be involved and it lends weight to any position.
The US is not needed as a global policeman, but it's interventions are hugely consequential for good or ill.it’s not needed as a global policeman Okies so who can fill there boots ? If anything kicks of in Europe who will they first ask for help ?
Why does the world need "a policeman"?
It needs a broad consensus and collective action. That creates legitimacy. Something that a police force needs. Arbitrary action by a single stage creates its own problems even if we'll intentioned."
Depends what you mean by we..? Often the intentions of a country or a collection of groups range from the naively we are liberator bringing democracy to the world to solely personal gain through links with the defence contractors or other malicious motives.
The public, political leaders and military are never a block thought. Just who has most influence and power. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale...
You still haven't answered the question you skirting around it. A simple yes or no is the question. Not that hard to analyze it. Let me repeat . Do we need to be a isolated country it's not like we can't survive on our own or do we stay on a global stage ? Yes or no? We have resources to make it do you ?
As I've stated already, the USA trying to isolate from the world has historically worked out badly both within the country and without.
Economics and geopolitics dictate that. Instead of influencing global events in a positive way, things happen to you.
I'm not "skirting around" anything.
The USA' global engagement can be as substantial or as minimal as you wish it to be so it's not a sensible referendum question which is what you are making it. Not sure why the USA would set its ambition as "surviving"? The USA has some resources and not others. Britain has claimed it will be "global" post-Brexit whilst removing ourselves from an organisation with adequate scale to remain globally possible.
It is, actually, quite a complicated topic and very hard to analyse. Why would anyone think that domestic and geopolitics were simple and be solved with one "simple" policy decision?
It is a geopolitical issue .our standards of living is totally different than Europe standards. Yet we as a nation have to be the world's police. Yet other countries are the reason for that. Ww3 can break out at any moment . Do we defend euro interests or just fall back and let you all deal with the consequences. Kind of hard to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific to invade us. Ok see you bashing is for our standard of living. Yet here we are being the euro police. I think you will always be needed as the world police tbh I can’t see any other country taking that role in Europe need you more now than we have since ww2
Really? Even "global" Britain "punching above its weight"?
Are you saying that we need to be a client state of the US now more than ever?
The Trump administration did force the EU to view the US as an unreliable ally and already lead to increased military spending and closer European operational collaboration. This has played its part in pulling Sweden and Finland closer.
NATO does allow the US to push its military border out across the Atlantic, but that does come with a price.
US intervention based on politics rather than strategic policy has been a problem. It is a rich and powerful country with broadly benign societal views so it has always been on its own interests to be involved and it lends weight to any position.
The US is not needed as a global policeman, but it's interventions are hugely consequential for good or ill.it’s not needed as a global policeman Okies so who can fill there boots ? If anything kicks of in Europe who will they first ask for help ?
Why does the world need "a policeman"?
It needs a broad consensus and collective action. That creates legitimacy. Something that a police force needs. Arbitrary action by a single stage creates its own problems even if we'll intentioned."
I can’t agree soon as I think of Russia China North Korea Iran to name a few I think thank fuck for America we need them as much as we ever did it’s easy to just knock the USA but look at what they do they still give more money than most of eu in over seas aid |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" I can’t agree soon as I think of Russia China North Korea Iran to name a few I think thank fuck for America we need them as much as we ever did it’s easy to just knock the USA but look at what they do they still give more money than most of eu in over seas aid "
Not really
USA $34.62 billion
Germany $23.81 billion
EU institutions excluding EU members $14.82 billion this is not including other EU members own aid so add France $12.18 billion. So the EU combined is much bigger. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
" I can’t agree soon as I think of Russia China North Korea Iran to name a few I think thank fuck for America we need them as much as we ever did it’s easy to just knock the USA but look at what they do they still give more money than most of eu in over seas aid
Not really
USA $34.62 billion
Germany $23.81 billion
EU institutions excluding EU members $14.82 billion this is not including other EU members own aid so add France $12.18 billion. So the EU combined is much bigger."
Exactly 34 billion would go a long way here for local families. Why do we need to project that influence in America dollars. It be much better spent here.You know the tax payers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
" I can’t agree soon as I think of Russia China North Korea Iran to name a few I think thank fuck for America we need them as much as we ever did it’s easy to just knock the USA but look at what they do they still give more money than most of eu in over seas aid
Not really
USA $34.62 billion
Germany $23.81 billion
EU institutions excluding EU members $14.82 billion this is not including other EU members own aid so add France $12.18 billion. So the EU combined is much bigger."
Defense budgets are you happy with us cutting back and not trading weapon technology with others nations? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale...
You still haven't answered the question you skirting around it. A simple yes or no is the question. Not that hard to analyze it. Let me repeat . Do we need to be a isolated country it's not like we can't survive on our own or do we stay on a global stage ? Yes or no? We have resources to make it do you ?
As I've stated already, the USA trying to isolate from the world has historically worked out badly both within the country and without.
Economics and geopolitics dictate that. Instead of influencing global events in a positive way, things happen to you.
I'm not "skirting around" anything.
The USA' global engagement can be as substantial or as minimal as you wish it to be so it's not a sensible referendum question which is what you are making it. Not sure why the USA would set its ambition as "surviving"? The USA has some resources and not others. Britain has claimed it will be "global" post-Brexit whilst removing ourselves from an organisation with adequate scale to remain globally possible.
It is, actually, quite a complicated topic and very hard to analyse. Why would anyone think that domestic and geopolitics were simple and be solved with one "simple" policy decision?
It is a geopolitical issue .our standards of living is totally different than Europe standards. Yet we as a nation have to be the world's police. Yet other countries are the reason for that. Ww3 can break out at any moment . Do we defend euro interests or just fall back and let you all deal with the consequences. Kind of hard to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific to invade us. Ok see you bashing is for our standard of living. Yet here we are being the euro police. I think you will always be needed as the world police tbh I can’t see any other country taking that role in Europe need you more now than we have since ww2
Really? Even "global" Britain "punching above its weight"?
Are you saying that we need to be a client state of the US now more than ever?
The Trump administration did force the EU to view the US as an unreliable ally and already lead to increased military spending and closer European operational collaboration. This has played its part in pulling Sweden and Finland closer.
NATO does allow the US to push its military border out across the Atlantic, but that does come with a price.
US intervention based on politics rather than strategic policy has been a problem. It is a rich and powerful country with broadly benign societal views so it has always been on its own interests to be involved and it lends weight to any position.
The US is not needed as a global policeman, but it's interventions are hugely consequential for good or ill.it’s not needed as a global policeman Okies so who can fill there boots ? If anything kicks of in Europe who will they first ask for help ?
Why does the world need "a policeman"?
It needs a broad consensus and collective action. That creates legitimacy. Something that a police force needs. Arbitrary action by a single stage creates its own problems even if we'll intentioned. I can’t agree soon as I think of Russia China North Korea Iran to name a few I think thank fuck for America we need them as much as we ever did it’s easy to just knock the USA but look at what they do they still give more money than most of eu in over seas aid "
Who's "knocking" the USA?
It makes good decisions and bad ones.
What issue do you have about consensus and collective action? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"It's 4th of July weekend.Alot of our friends both republican and democrat are thinking we need to go back to American isolationism. It's a interesting topic with the internet controlling world views. Do we as a nation just say you on your own or do we continue with the status quo?
Do as you wish.
Most countries that believe that they can live in isolation eventually find out that they cannot.
Would you expect US companies to not operate abroad?
US citizens not to travel?
That neither of these things happening would end up involving the state in some international dispute.
You could lock yourself away, bit you will become socially and economically poorer for it.
Again. So as you wish.
I have, but nobody has to "stay on topic" in a thread.
A discussion about isolation which you are trying to assert control over. Something to consider on a national scale...
You still haven't answered the question you skirting around it. A simple yes or no is the question. Not that hard to analyze it. Let me repeat . Do we need to be a isolated country it's not like we can't survive on our own or do we stay on a global stage ? Yes or no? We have resources to make it do you ?
As I've stated already, the USA trying to isolate from the world has historically worked out badly both within the country and without.
Economics and geopolitics dictate that. Instead of influencing global events in a positive way, things happen to you.
I'm not "skirting around" anything.
The USA' global engagement can be as substantial or as minimal as you wish it to be so it's not a sensible referendum question which is what you are making it. Not sure why the USA would set its ambition as "surviving"? The USA has some resources and not others. Britain has claimed it will be "global" post-Brexit whilst removing ourselves from an organisation with adequate scale to remain globally possible.
It is, actually, quite a complicated topic and very hard to analyse. Why would anyone think that domestic and geopolitics were simple and be solved with one "simple" policy decision?
It is a geopolitical issue .our standards of living is totally different than Europe standards. Yet we as a nation have to be the world's police. Yet other countries are the reason for that. Ww3 can break out at any moment . Do we defend euro interests or just fall back and let you all deal with the consequences. Kind of hard to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific to invade us. Ok see you bashing is for our standard of living. Yet here we are being the euro police. I think you will always be needed as the world police tbh I can’t see any other country taking that role in Europe need you more now than we have since ww2
Really? Even "global" Britain "punching above its weight"?
Are you saying that we need to be a client state of the US now more than ever?
The Trump administration did force the EU to view the US as an unreliable ally and already lead to increased military spending and closer European operational collaboration. This has played its part in pulling Sweden and Finland closer.
NATO does allow the US to push its military border out across the Atlantic, but that does come with a price.
US intervention based on politics rather than strategic policy has been a problem. It is a rich and powerful country with broadly benign societal views so it has always been on its own interests to be involved and it lends weight to any position.
The US is not needed as a global policeman, but it's interventions are hugely consequential for good or ill.it’s not needed as a global policeman Okies so who can fill there boots ? If anything kicks of in Europe who will they first ask for help ?
Why does the world need "a policeman"?
It needs a broad consensus and collective action. That creates legitimacy. Something that a police force needs. Arbitrary action by a single stage creates its own problems even if we'll intentioned.
Depends what you mean by we..? Often the intentions of a country or a collection of groups range from the naively we are liberator bringing democracy to the world to solely personal gain through links with the defence contractors or other malicious motives.
The public, political leaders and military are never a block thought. Just who has most influence and power."
I didn't mean we, I meant well and I meant state rather than stage.
Typos.
" We" would be the consensus. That cannot be completely extracted from individual state interest, but hopefully more from short term political interest which seems to be how the drift now is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amish SMan
over a year ago
Eastleigh |
The USA does not act like world police, protectors of EU etc, it just looks like they are. The reason the USA acts the way its does is that it does not want to scrap on its own doorstep. Therefore it makes sense to defend itself as far from American shores as possible, just so happens other countries get the pretection while it does so. As for Americans travelling outside their border and the risks involved, there are bars in San Diego where they would not step in. Shame, as the Mexican bars we went to watch the football were most welcoming when they realised we were British. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The USA does not act like world police, protectors of EU etc, it just looks like they are. The reason the USA acts the way its does is that it does not want to scrap on its own doorstep. Therefore it makes sense to defend itself as far from American shores as possible, just so happens other countries get the pretection while it does so. As for Americans travelling outside their border and the risks involved, there are bars in San Diego where they would not step in. Shame, as the Mexican bars we went to watch the football were most welcoming when they realised we were British. "
.
Can the EU survive a full scale WW3 without US intervention yes or no? If not I fully comfortable going to a "American First" . Policy. Dropping every bases overseas and let you all sort your differences out. it's a fair ideology don't you think ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The USA does not act like world police, protectors of EU etc, it just looks like they are. The reason the USA acts the way its does is that it does not want to scrap on its own doorstep. Therefore it makes sense to defend itself as far from American shores as possible, just so happens other countries get the pretection while it does so. As for Americans travelling outside their border and the risks involved, there are bars in San Diego where they would not step in. Shame, as the Mexican bars we went to watch the football were most welcoming when they realised we were British. .
Can the EU survive a full scale WW3 without US intervention yes or no? If not I fully comfortable going to a "American First" . Policy. Dropping every bases overseas and let you all sort your differences out. it's a fair ideology don't you think ?"
Are you a Russian bot? It feels from what you are saying that you might be |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can the EU survive a full scale WW3 without US intervention yes or no? If not I fully comfortable going to a "American First" . Policy. Dropping every bases overseas and let you all sort your differences out. it's a fair ideology don't you think ?"
It is a 'fair' ideology, but it's not a sensible one. If nuclear weapons started to be used, you'd likely end up with either Russia or China in overall charge of most of the world. Does that sound like a good place for the US to be? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"The USA does not act like world police, protectors of EU etc, it just looks like they are. The reason the USA acts the way its does is that it does not want to scrap on its own doorstep. Therefore it makes sense to defend itself as far from American shores as possible, just so happens other countries get the pretection while it does so. As for Americans travelling outside their border and the risks involved, there are bars in San Diego where they would not step in. Shame, as the Mexican bars we went to watch the football were most welcoming when they realised we were British. .
Can the EU survive a full scale WW3 without US intervention yes or no? If not I fully comfortable going to a "American First" . Policy. Dropping every bases overseas and let you all sort your differences out. it's a fair ideology don't you think ?"
It wouldn't be a world war, by definition, of it was on Europe.
There is an independent nuclear deterrent. They exist for a reason.
It's been explained to you why the USA engages in international military treaties. To push your borders out.
Your reasons for intervening to secure natural resources or political influence are an extension of that but have been mixed with pure politics to various degrees of success or failure.
You seem to be trying to provide a simple solution to a complex geopolitical problem.
Why do you believe that the world's problems won't come to you? Particularly if you allow political and economic rivals to grow their global influence unchecked.
Will that actually put "America first" if you are alone in a world that limits your opportunity to tease and obtain natural resources and intellectual talent? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The USA does not act like world police, protectors of EU etc, it just looks like they are. The reason the USA acts the way its does is that it does not want to scrap on its own doorstep. Therefore it makes sense to defend itself as far from American shores as possible, just so happens other countries get the pretection while it does so. As for Americans travelling outside their border and the risks involved, there are bars in San Diego where they would not step in. Shame, as the Mexican bars we went to watch the football were most welcoming when they realised we were British. .
Can the EU survive a full scale WW3 without US intervention yes or no? If not I fully comfortable going to a "American First" . Policy. Dropping every bases overseas and let you all sort your differences out. it's a fair ideology don't you think ?
It wouldn't be a world war, by definition, of it was on Europe.
There is an independent nuclear deterrent. They exist for a reason.
It's been explained to you why the USA engages in international military treaties. To push your borders out.
Your reasons for intervening to secure natural resources or political influence are an extension of that but have been mixed with pure politics to various degrees of success or failure.
You seem to be trying to provide a simple solution to a complex geopolitical problem.
Why do you believe that the world's problems won't come to you? Particularly if you allow political and economic rivals to grow their global influence unchecked.
Will that actually put "America first" if you are alone in a world that limits your opportunity to tease and obtain natural resources and intellectual talent?"
Agreed then america first with trade is a fair assumption. It is a great solution is it not ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"The USA does not act like world police, protectors of EU etc, it just looks like they are. The reason the USA acts the way its does is that it does not want to scrap on its own doorstep. Therefore it makes sense to defend itself as far from American shores as possible, just so happens other countries get the pretection while it does so. As for Americans travelling outside their border and the risks involved, there are bars in San Diego where they would not step in. Shame, as the Mexican bars we went to watch the football were most welcoming when they realised we were British. .
Can the EU survive a full scale WW3 without US intervention yes or no? If not I fully comfortable going to a "American First" . Policy. Dropping every bases overseas and let you all sort your differences out. it's a fair ideology don't you think ?
It wouldn't be a world war, by definition, of it was on Europe.
There is an independent nuclear deterrent. They exist for a reason.
It's been explained to you why the USA engages in international military treaties. To push your borders out.
Your reasons for intervening to secure natural resources or political influence are an extension of that but have been mixed with pure politics to various degrees of success or failure.
You seem to be trying to provide a simple solution to a complex geopolitical problem.
Why do you believe that the world's problems won't come to you? Particularly if you allow political and economic rivals to grow their global influence unchecked.
Will that actually put "America first" if you are alone in a world that limits your opportunity to tease and obtain natural resources and intellectual talent?
Agreed then america first with trade is a fair assumption. It is a great solution is it not ? "
You were saying that you didn't need trade earlier. You could "survive" on your own.
You're too late to that party with trade now. China owns everything that you want and your trade deals demand too much. You can continue isolated with your antiquated technology and create global damage that will hot you as hard as anywhere.
We are back to where we started. You can do exactly what you wish, but if you do there will be both prwdictable and unintended consequences. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The USA does not act like world police, protectors of EU etc, it just looks like they are. The reason the USA acts the way its does is that it does not want to scrap on its own doorstep. Therefore it makes sense to defend itself as far from American shores as possible, just so happens other countries get the pretection while it does so. As for Americans travelling outside their border and the risks involved, there are bars in San Diego where they would not step in. Shame, as the Mexican bars we went to watch the football were most welcoming when they realised we were British. .
Can the EU survive a full scale WW3 without US intervention yes or no? If not I fully comfortable going to a "American First" . Policy. Dropping every bases overseas and let you all sort your differences out. it's a fair ideology don't you think ?
It wouldn't be a world war, by definition, of it was on Europe.
There is an independent nuclear deterrent. They exist for a reason.
It's been explained to you why the USA engages in international military treaties. To push your borders out.
Your reasons for intervening to secure natural resources or political influence are an extension of that but have been mixed with pure politics to various degrees of success or failure.
You seem to be trying to provide a simple solution to a complex geopolitical problem.
Why do you believe that the world's problems won't come to you? Particularly if you allow political and economic rivals to grow their global influence unchecked.
Will that actually put "America first" if you are alone in a world that limits your opportunity to tease and obtain natural resources and intellectual talent?
Agreed then america first with trade is a fair assumption. It is a great solution is it not ?
You were saying that you didn't need trade earlier. You could "survive" on your own.
You're too late to that party with trade now. China owns everything that you want and your trade deals demand too much. You can continue isolated with your antiquated technology and create global damage that will hot you as hard as anywhere.
We are back to where we started. You can do exactly what you wish, but if you do there will be both prwdictable and unintended consequences."
I agreed did I not on trade ? It's acceptable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The USA does not act like world police, protectors of EU etc, it just looks like they are. The reason the USA acts the way its does is that it does not want to scrap on its own doorstep. Therefore it makes sense to defend itself as far from American shores as possible, just so happens other countries get the pretection while it does so. As for Americans travelling outside their border and the risks involved, there are bars in San Diego where they would not step in. Shame, as the Mexican bars we went to watch the football were most welcoming when they realised we were British. .
Can the EU survive a full scale WW3 without US intervention yes or no? If not I fully comfortable going to a "American First" . Policy. Dropping every bases overseas and let you all sort your differences out. it's a fair ideology don't you think ?
It wouldn't be a world war, by definition, of it was on Europe.
There is an independent nuclear deterrent. They exist for a reason.
It's been explained to you why the USA engages in international military treaties. To push your borders out.
Your reasons for intervening to secure natural resources or political influence are an extension of that but have been mixed with pure politics to various degrees of success or failure.
You seem to be trying to provide a simple solution to a complex geopolitical problem.
Why do you believe that the world's problems won't come to you? Particularly if you allow political and economic rivals to grow their global influence unchecked.
Will that actually put "America first" if you are alone in a world that limits your opportunity to tease and obtain natural resources and intellectual talent?
Agreed then america first with trade is a fair assumption. It is a great solution is it not ?
You were saying that you didn't need trade earlier. You could "survive" on your own.
You're too late to that party with trade now. China owns everything that you want and your trade deals demand too much. You can continue isolated with your antiquated technology and create global damage that will hot you as hard as anywhere.
We are back to where we started. You can do exactly what you wish, but if you do there will be both prwdictable and unintended consequences. I agreed did I not on trade ? It's acceptable."
I literally said you are right so why the disdain? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The USA does not act like world police, protectors of EU etc, it just looks like they are. The reason the USA acts the way its does is that it does not want to scrap on its own doorstep. Therefore it makes sense to defend itself as far from American shores as possible, just so happens other countries get the pretection while it does so. As for Americans travelling outside their border and the risks involved, there are bars in San Diego where they would not step in. Shame, as the Mexican bars we went to watch the football were most welcoming when they realised we were British. .
Can the EU survive a full scale WW3 without US intervention yes or no? If not I fully comfortable going to a "American First" . Policy. Dropping every bases overseas and let you all sort your differences out. it's a fair ideology don't you think ?
It wouldn't be a world war, by definition, of it was on Europe.
There is an independent nuclear deterrent. They exist for a reason.
It's been explained to you why the USA engages in international military treaties. To push your borders out.
Your reasons for intervening to secure natural resources or political influence are an extension of that but have been mixed with pure politics to various degrees of success or failure.
You seem to be trying to provide a simple solution to a complex geopolitical problem.
Why do you believe that the world's problems won't come to you? Particularly if you allow political and economic rivals to grow their global influence unchecked.
Will that actually put "America first" if you are alone in a world that limits your opportunity to tease and obtain natural resources and intellectual talent?
Agreed then america first with trade is a fair assumption. It is a great solution is it not ?
You were saying that you didn't need trade earlier. You could "survive" on your own.
You're too late to that party with trade now. China owns everything that you want and your trade deals demand too much. You can continue isolated with your antiquated technology and create global damage that will hot you as hard as anywhere.
We are back to where we started. You can do exactly what you wish, but if you do there will be both prwdictable and unintended consequences. I agreed did I not on trade ? It's acceptable. I literally said you are right so why the disdain?"
I made a assumption on other nations think on my vote.. it's critical I agree on certain aspects but now I am wrong make your mind up. Easy trade or our military support in other countries. Not that hard. Tired of paying billions when it can go further to healthcare and better of quality of living for people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"The USA does not act like world police, protectors of EU etc, it just looks like they are. The reason the USA acts the way its does is that it does not want to scrap on its own doorstep. Therefore it makes sense to defend itself as far from American shores as possible, just so happens other countries get the pretection while it does so. As for Americans travelling outside their border and the risks involved, there are bars in San Diego where they would not step in. Shame, as the Mexican bars we went to watch the football were most welcoming when they realised we were British. .
Can the EU survive a full scale WW3 without US intervention yes or no? If not I fully comfortable going to a "American First" . Policy. Dropping every bases overseas and let you all sort your differences out. it's a fair ideology don't you think ?
It wouldn't be a world war, by definition, of it was on Europe.
There is an independent nuclear deterrent. They exist for a reason.
It's been explained to you why the USA engages in international military treaties. To push your borders out.
Your reasons for intervening to secure natural resources or political influence are an extension of that but have been mixed with pure politics to various degrees of success or failure.
You seem to be trying to provide a simple solution to a complex geopolitical problem.
Why do you believe that the world's problems won't come to you? Particularly if you allow political and economic rivals to grow their global influence unchecked.
Will that actually put "America first" if you are alone in a world that limits your opportunity to tease and obtain natural resources and intellectual talent?
Agreed then america first with trade is a fair assumption. It is a great solution is it not ?
You were saying that you didn't need trade earlier. You could "survive" on your own.
You're too late to that party with trade now. China owns everything that you want and your trade deals demand too much. You can continue isolated with your antiquated technology and create global damage that will hot you as hard as anywhere.
We are back to where we started. You can do exactly what you wish, but if you do there will be both prwdictable and unintended consequences. I agreed did I not on trade ? It's acceptable. I literally said you are right so why the disdain?
I made a assumption on other nations think on my vote.. it's critical I agree on certain aspects but now I am wrong make your mind up. Easy trade or our military support in other countries. Not that hard. Tired of paying billions when it can go further to healthcare and better of quality of living for people."
You have completely changed your position then.
You don't, actually, want the USA to withdraw from everything and "survive".
You want it to engage. However, I assume that you would expect it to protect its assets and citizens if threatened. Perhaps not.
Trade alliances do morph into military ones when a trade partner is threatened by a rival block.
That is different to going out and finding fights for revenge and short-term political benefit, such as Iran or Afghanistan. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The USA does not act like world police, protectors of EU etc, it just looks like they are. The reason the USA acts the way its does is that it does not want to scrap on its own doorstep. Therefore it makes sense to defend itself as far from American shores as possible, just so happens other countries get the pretection while it does so. As for Americans travelling outside their border and the risks involved, there are bars in San Diego where they would not step in. Shame, as the Mexican bars we went to watch the football were most welcoming when they realised we were British. .
Can the EU survive a full scale WW3 without US intervention yes or no? If not I fully comfortable going to a "American First" . Policy. Dropping every bases overseas and let you all sort your differences out. it's a fair ideology don't you think ?
It wouldn't be a world war, by definition, of it was on Europe.
There is an independent nuclear deterrent. They exist for a reason.
It's been explained to you why the USA engages in international military treaties. To push your borders out.
Your reasons for intervening to secure natural resources or political influence are an extension of that but have been mixed with pure politics to various degrees of success or failure.
You seem to be trying to provide a simple solution to a complex geopolitical problem.
Why do you believe that the world's problems won't come to you? Particularly if you allow political and economic rivals to grow their global influence unchecked.
Will that actually put "America first" if you are alone in a world that limits your opportunity to tease and obtain natural resources and intellectual talent?
Agreed then america first with trade is a fair assumption. It is a great solution is it not ?
You were saying that you didn't need trade earlier. You could "survive" on your own.
You're too late to that party with trade now. China owns everything that you want and your trade deals demand too much. You can continue isolated with your antiquated technology and create global damage that will hot you as hard as anywhere.
We are back to where we started. You can do exactly what you wish, but if you do there will be both prwdictable and unintended consequences. I agreed did I not on trade ? It's acceptable. I literally said you are right so why the disdain?
I made a assumption on other nations think on my vote.. it's critical I agree on certain aspects but now I am wrong make your mind up. Easy trade or our military support in other countries. Not that hard. Tired of paying billions when it can go further to healthcare and better of quality of living for people.
You have completely changed your position then.
You don't, actually, want the USA to withdraw from everything and "survive".
You want it to engage. However, I assume that you would expect it to protect its assets and citizens if threatened. Perhaps not.
Trade alliances do morph into military ones when a trade partner is threatened by a rival block.
That is different to going out and finding fights for revenge and short-term political benefit, such as Iran or Afghanistan."
. We traded in the first American isolationist policy. I agree with you we can do it without being involved in other nations military conflicts until we get attacked. Trade is essential. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"The USA does not act like world police, protectors of EU etc, it just looks like they are. The reason the USA acts the way its does is that it does not want to scrap on its own doorstep. Therefore it makes sense to defend itself as far from American shores as possible, just so happens other countries get the pretection while it does so. As for Americans travelling outside their border and the risks involved, there are bars in San Diego where they would not step in. Shame, as the Mexican bars we went to watch the football were most welcoming when they realised we were British. .
Can the EU survive a full scale WW3 without US intervention yes or no? If not I fully comfortable going to a "American First" . Policy. Dropping every bases overseas and let you all sort your differences out. it's a fair ideology don't you think ?
It wouldn't be a world war, by definition, of it was on Europe.
There is an independent nuclear deterrent. They exist for a reason.
It's been explained to you why the USA engages in international military treaties. To push your borders out.
Your reasons for intervening to secure natural resources or political influence are an extension of that but have been mixed with pure politics to various degrees of success or failure.
You seem to be trying to provide a simple solution to a complex geopolitical problem.
Why do you believe that the world's problems won't come to you? Particularly if you allow political and economic rivals to grow their global influence unchecked.
Will that actually put "America first" if you are alone in a world that limits your opportunity to tease and obtain natural resources and intellectual talent?
Agreed then america first with trade is a fair assumption. It is a great solution is it not ?
You were saying that you didn't need trade earlier. You could "survive" on your own.
You're too late to that party with trade now. China owns everything that you want and your trade deals demand too much. You can continue isolated with your antiquated technology and create global damage that will hot you as hard as anywhere.
We are back to where we started. You can do exactly what you wish, but if you do there will be both prwdictable and unintended consequences. I agreed did I not on trade ? It's acceptable. I literally said you are right so why the disdain?
I made a assumption on other nations think on my vote.. it's critical I agree on certain aspects but now I am wrong make your mind up. Easy trade or our military support in other countries. Not that hard. Tired of paying billions when it can go further to healthcare and better of quality of living for people.
You have completely changed your position then.
You don't, actually, want the USA to withdraw from everything and "survive".
You want it to engage. However, I assume that you would expect it to protect its assets and citizens if threatened. Perhaps not.
Trade alliances do morph into military ones when a trade partner is threatened by a rival block.
That is different to going out and finding fights for revenge and short-term political benefit, such as Iran or Afghanistan.. We traded in the first American isolationist policy. I agree with you we can do it without being involved in other nations military conflicts until we get attacked. Trade is essential."
Then you are now saying something else to how you started and I broadly agree.
However, if countries gain power with naked aggression in other parts of the world, do you do nothing?
What if they choose to "re-educate" ensl@ve or torture or exterminate them. Do you do nothing? All happening now or in living memory.
None of your business even though your intervention could prevent it?
What's your line? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Can't I change my mind according to your global geopolitical opinion. I agreed is that not enough? I admit you right how we can't do a total trade isolation.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Can't I change my mind according to your global geopolitical opinion. I agreed is that not enough? I admit you right how we can't do a total trade isolation. "
Of course you can, and your new position seems more realistic and pragmatic than your stark starting point. I haven't criticised you for that. Very few people are able to do so.
However, what you would be prepared to do beyond self-defence and the defence of your assets is a far harder question, no? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Can't I change my mind according to your global geopolitical opinion. I agreed is that not enough? I admit you right how we can't do a total trade isolation.
Of course you can, and your new position seems more realistic and pragmatic than your stark starting point. I haven't criticised you for that. Very few people are able to do so.
However, what you would be prepared to do beyond self-defence and the defence of your assets is a far harder question, no?"
agreed but spending billions on overseas bases to protect foreign interests at this point when everyone can handle their own affairs is becoming redundant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Can't I change my mind according to your global geopolitical opinion. I agreed is that not enough? I admit you right how we can't do a total trade isolation.
Of course you can, and your new position seems more realistic and pragmatic than your stark starting point. I haven't criticised you for that. Very few people are able to do so.
However, what you would be prepared to do beyond self-defence and the defence of your assets is a far harder question, no? agreed but spending billions on overseas bases to protect foreign interests at this point when everyone can handle their own affairs is becoming redundant."
That wasn't what I meant. You can have friendly host countries with limited permanent or occasional deployments.
I meant what I asked in my post before your last replied.
What are you prepared to intervene in and what will you turn a blind eye to? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Can't I change my mind according to your global geopolitical opinion. I agreed is that not enough? I admit you right how we can't do a total trade isolation.
Of course you can, and your new position seems more realistic and pragmatic than your stark starting point. I haven't criticised you for that. Very few people are able to do so.
However, what you would be prepared to do beyond self-defence and the defence of your assets is a far harder question, no? agreed but spending billions on overseas bases to protect foreign interests at this point when everyone can handle their own affairs is becoming redundant.
That wasn't what I meant. You can have friendly host countries with limited permanent or occasional deployments.
I meant what I asked in my post before your last replied.
What are you prepared to intervene in and what will you turn a blind eye to?"
Supplying the nation in duress weapons is better than putting boots on the ground.No one likes us to be the "world police". Supplying the weapons is protecting the asset without full intervention. If the hostile nation attacks America just like Japan did then the dynamic changes.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Can't I change my mind according to your global geopolitical opinion. I agreed is that not enough? I admit you right how we can't do a total trade isolation.
Of course you can, and your new position seems more realistic and pragmatic than your stark starting point. I haven't criticised you for that. Very few people are able to do so.
However, what you would be prepared to do beyond self-defence and the defence of your assets is a far harder question, no? agreed but spending billions on overseas bases to protect foreign interests at this point when everyone can handle their own affairs is becoming redundant.
That wasn't what I meant. You can have friendly host countries with limited permanent or occasional deployments.
I meant what I asked in my post before your last replied.
What are you prepared to intervene in and what will you turn a blind eye to?
Supplying the nation in duress weapons is better than putting boots on the ground.No one likes us to be the "world police". Supplying the weapons is protecting the asset without full intervention. If the hostile nation attacks America just like Japan did then the dynamic changes.
"
Sending weapons takes longer than sending troops unless allies are already trained in there use.
What if a country is overrun and the scenarios that I paid out take place?
What if chemical weapons are used?
It's not the simple things that need considering and addressing before they happen. It's the hard things... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Can't I change my mind according to your global geopolitical opinion. I agreed is that not enough? I admit you right how we can't do a total trade isolation.
Of course you can, and your new position seems more realistic and pragmatic than your stark starting point. I haven't criticised you for that. Very few people are able to do so.
However, what you would be prepared to do beyond self-defence and the defence of your assets is a far harder question, no? agreed but spending billions on overseas bases to protect foreign interests at this point when everyone can handle their own affairs is becoming redundant.
That wasn't what I meant. You can have friendly host countries with limited permanent or occasional deployments.
I meant what I asked in my post before your last replied.
What are you prepared to intervene in and what will you turn a blind eye to?
Supplying the nation in duress weapons is better than putting boots on the ground.No one likes us to be the "world police". Supplying the weapons is protecting the asset without full intervention. If the hostile nation attacks America just like Japan did then the dynamic changes.
Sending weapons takes longer than sending troops unless allies are already trained in there use.
What if a country is overrun and the scenarios that I paid out take place?
What if chemical weapons are used?
It's not the simple things that need considering and addressing before they happen. It's the hard things..."
.
So what intervention warrants US response then ? Clearly we doing everything wrong in the geo political spectrum. We have to take care of ourselves first in case you didn't notice everything happening here.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Can't I change my mind according to your global geopolitical opinion. I agreed is that not enough? I admit you right how we can't do a total trade isolation.
Of course you can, and your new position seems more realistic and pragmatic than your stark starting point. I haven't criticised you for that. Very few people are able to do so.
However, what you would be prepared to do beyond self-defence and the defence of your assets is a far harder question, no? agreed but spending billions on overseas bases to protect foreign interests at this point when everyone can handle their own affairs is becoming redundant.
That wasn't what I meant. You can have friendly host countries with limited permanent or occasional deployments.
I meant what I asked in my post before your last replied.
What are you prepared to intervene in and what will you turn a blind eye to?
Supplying the nation in duress weapons is better than putting boots on the ground.No one likes us to be the "world police". Supplying the weapons is protecting the asset without full intervention. If the hostile nation attacks America just like Japan did then the dynamic changes.
Sending weapons takes longer than sending troops unless allies are already trained in there use.
What if a country is overrun and the scenarios that I paid out take place?
What if chemical weapons are used?
It's not the simple things that need considering and addressing before they happen. It's the hard things....
So what intervention warrants US response then ? Clearly we doing everything wrong in the geo political spectrum. We have to take care of ourselves first in case you didn't notice everything happening here.
"
That's a question for you. I'm not sure why you keep asking me what you should do. It's your country.
What is "everything" happening in the USA?
How would that compare to a genocide happening somewhere else in the world that you could, with or without allies, intervene to prevent?
What's your threshold of what is acceptable? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Can't I change my mind according to your global geopolitical opinion. I agreed is that not enough? I admit you right how we can't do a total trade isolation.
Of course you can, and your new position seems more realistic and pragmatic than your stark starting point. I haven't criticised you for that. Very few people are able to do so.
However, what you would be prepared to do beyond self-defence and the defence of your assets is a far harder question, no? agreed but spending billions on overseas bases to protect foreign interests at this point when everyone can handle their own affairs is becoming redundant.
That wasn't what I meant. You can have friendly host countries with limited permanent or occasional deployments.
I meant what I asked in my post before your last replied.
What are you prepared to intervene in and what will you turn a blind eye to?
Supplying the nation in duress weapons is better than putting boots on the ground.No one likes us to be the "world police". Supplying the weapons is protecting the asset without full intervention. If the hostile nation attacks America just like Japan did then the dynamic changes.
Sending weapons takes longer than sending troops unless allies are already trained in there use.
What if a country is overrun and the scenarios that I paid out take place?
What if chemical weapons are used?
It's not the simple things that need considering and addressing before they happen. It's the hard things....
So what intervention warrants US response then ? Clearly we doing everything wrong in the geo political spectrum. We have to take care of ourselves first in case you didn't notice everything happening here.
That's a question for you. I'm not sure why you keep asking me what you should do. It's your country.
What is "everything" happening in the USA?
How would that compare to a genocide happening somewhere else in the world that you could, with or without allies, intervene to prevent?
What's your threshold of what is acceptable?"
Ok then it's my country. Issue resolved. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Can't I change my mind according to your global geopolitical opinion. I agreed is that not enough? I admit you right how we can't do a total trade isolation.
Of course you can, and your new position seems more realistic and pragmatic than your stark starting point. I haven't criticised you for that. Very few people are able to do so.
However, what you would be prepared to do beyond self-defence and the defence of your assets is a far harder question, no? agreed but spending billions on overseas bases to protect foreign interests at this point when everyone can handle their own affairs is becoming redundant.
That wasn't what I meant. You can have friendly host countries with limited permanent or occasional deployments.
I meant what I asked in my post before your last replied.
What are you prepared to intervene in and what will you turn a blind eye to?
Supplying the nation in duress weapons is better than putting boots on the ground.No one likes us to be the "world police". Supplying the weapons is protecting the asset without full intervention. If the hostile nation attacks America just like Japan did then the dynamic changes.
Sending weapons takes longer than sending troops unless allies are already trained in there use.
What if a country is overrun and the scenarios that I paid out take place?
What if chemical weapons are used?
It's not the simple things that need considering and addressing before they happen. It's the hard things....
So what intervention warrants US response then ? Clearly we doing everything wrong in the geo political spectrum. We have to take care of ourselves first in case you didn't notice everything happening here.
That's a question for you. I'm not sure why you keep asking me what you should do. It's your country.
What is "everything" happening in the USA?
How would that compare to a genocide happening somewhere else in the world that you could, with or without allies, intervene to prevent?
What's your threshold of what is acceptable?
Ok then it's my country. Issue resolved."
If you like.
Smart answer, but you avoided the difficult part of the "simple" solution you proposed.
You started the thread, so you can declare victory if you wish. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"You started the thread, so you can declare victory if you wish.
She has done.
She won."
not technically I need to work on my nuances. He made a lot of great points. I think it's a culture difference and understanding. My check mate is weak . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Can't I change my mind according to your global geopolitical opinion. I agreed is that not enough? I admit you right how we can't do a total trade isolation.
Of course you can, and your new position seems more realistic and pragmatic than your stark starting point. I haven't criticised you for that. Very few people are able to do so.
However, what you would be prepared to do beyond self-defence and the defence of your assets is a far harder question, no? agreed but spending billions on overseas bases to protect foreign interests at this point when everyone can handle their own affairs is becoming redundant.
That wasn't what I meant. You can have friendly host countries with limited permanent or occasional deployments.
I meant what I asked in my post before your last replied.
What are you prepared to intervene in and what will you turn a blind eye to?
Supplying the nation in duress weapons is better than putting boots on the ground.No one likes us to be the "world police". Supplying the weapons is protecting the asset without full intervention. If the hostile nation attacks America just like Japan did then the dynamic changes.
Sending weapons takes longer than sending troops unless allies are already trained in there use.
What if a country is overrun and the scenarios that I paid out take place?
What if chemical weapons are used?
It's not the simple things that need considering and addressing before they happen. It's the hard things....
So what intervention warrants US response then ? Clearly we doing everything wrong in the geo political spectrum. We have to take care of ourselves first in case you didn't notice everything happening here.
That's a question for you. I'm not sure why you keep asking me what you should do. It's your country.
What is "everything" happening in the USA?
How would that compare to a genocide happening somewhere else in the world that you could, with or without allies, intervene to prevent?
What's your threshold of what is acceptable?
Ok then it's my country. Issue resolved.
If you like.
Smart answer, but you avoided the difficult part of the "simple" solution you proposed.
You started the thread, so you can declare victory if you wish."
Here is a little contemplation for you did Uk people vote for Brexit ?is it not a isolationism policy? So on that standard why can't we ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
We get involved in too much of world affairs. Yet we try to stop that and get judged by the very same people that voted for a isolationism policy. Weird and that is my point. We scream isolation yet the world screams back you can't do that. We don't want to be a superpower because of politics. We want to be just left alone and take care of our own. But yet here we are " Embracing the suck ". Nah I support my people just like you do . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Here is a little contemplation for you did Uk people vote for Brexit ?is it not a isolationism policy? So on that standard why can't we ? "
That depends on why they voted for Brexit. Some of them did so because the EU is a protectionist system that puts up barriers to trade with other nations. Leaving the EU would (theoretically) allow freer trade with more of the world. If that's why they voted for Brexit, then no it's not an isolationist policy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Here is a little contemplation for you did Uk people vote for Brexit ?is it not a isolationism policy? So on that standard why can't we ?
That depends on why they voted for Brexit. Some of them did so because the EU is a protectionist system that puts up barriers to trade with other nations. Leaving the EU would (theoretically) allow freer trade with more of the world. If that's why they voted for Brexit, then no it's not an isolationist policy."
free trade is 10O percent acceptance. Our military not so much. It's designed to protect the homeland is it not ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Here is a little contemplation for you did Uk people vote for Brexit ?is it not a isolationism policy? So on that standard why can't we ?
That depends on why they voted for Brexit. Some of them did so because the EU is a protectionist system that puts up barriers to trade with other nations. Leaving the EU would (theoretically) allow freer trade with more of the world. If that's why they voted for Brexit, then no it's not an isolationist policy."
It's is you isolated from the rest of the EU. British first policy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
You cannot have an isolationist policy in the UK or anywhere else and still have trade.
Otherwise you are arguing for getting the benefits of relations with other countries without the responsibilities that come from dealing on the global field.
It isn't sustainable.
[this has been an opinion] |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Like WW1 and WW2..
You'll get dragged into WW3 so best stick with us now and hopefully it'll turn out OK.."
of course we will dragged into it. You all judge us on our values yet need us to keep the wolves at bay.. how derogatory is that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Like WW1 and WW2..
You'll get dragged into WW3 so best stick with us now and hopefully it'll turn out OK.. of course we will dragged into it. You all judge us on our values yet need us to keep the wolves at bay.. how derogatory is that. "
Need, no.
Appreciate, yes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Like WW1 and WW2..
You'll get dragged into WW3 so best stick with us now and hopefully it'll turn out OK.. of course we will dragged into it. You all judge us on our values yet need us to keep the wolves at bay.. how derogatory is that. "
it's like sleeping with a football team and claiming you are a virgin. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Here is a little contemplation for you did Uk people vote for Brexit ?is it not a isolationism policy? So on that standard why can't we ?
That depends on why they voted for Brexit. Some of them did so because the EU is a protectionist system that puts up barriers to trade with other nations. Leaving the EU would (theoretically) allow freer trade with more of the world. If that's why they voted for Brexit, then no it's not an isolationist policy.
It's is you isolated from the rest of the EU. British first policy."
And look how well that is doing for us now?
We’ve a donkey for a PM, we have shortages in the Market, things cost more and the pound is flaccid and limp like a man with erectile dysfunction.
So take the UK’s stupidity as a lesson in how populism fucks the country up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Here is a little contemplation for you did Uk people vote for Brexit ?is it not a isolationism policy? So on that standard why can't we ?
That depends on why they voted for Brexit. Some of them did so because the EU is a protectionist system that puts up barriers to trade with other nations. Leaving the EU would (theoretically) allow freer trade with more of the world. If that's why they voted for Brexit, then no it's not an isolationist policy.
It's is you isolated from the rest of the EU. British first policy.
And look how well that is doing for us now?
We’ve a donkey for a PM, we have shortages in the Market, things cost more and the pound is flaccid and limp like a man with erectile dysfunction.
So take the UK’s stupidity as a lesson in how populism fucks the country up."
.
Yet our acceptance as a warrior society is only needed when convenient. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"In my opinion.. we better off with the same isolationism that your country cherish. It's the same thing. Let your people choose their destination."
Ole Boris proves my standpoint. Enjoy the repercussions. It is going to be a long winter for most folks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
So I am not a " check mate" I just trying to understand the geopolitical views on how Americans operate. No offense .peace enjoy yourself. Not another word from me it does not matter. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Can't I change my mind according to your global geopolitical opinion. I agreed is that not enough? I admit you right how we can't do a total trade isolation.
Of course you can, and your new position seems more realistic and pragmatic than your stark starting point. I haven't criticised you for that. Very few people are able to do so.
However, what you would be prepared to do beyond self-defence and the defence of your assets is a far harder question, no? agreed but spending billions on overseas bases to protect foreign interests at this point when everyone can handle their own affairs is becoming redundant.
That wasn't what I meant. You can have friendly host countries with limited permanent or occasional deployments.
I meant what I asked in my post before your last replied.
What are you prepared to intervene in and what will you turn a blind eye to?
Supplying the nation in duress weapons is better than putting boots on the ground.No one likes us to be the "world police". Supplying the weapons is protecting the asset without full intervention. If the hostile nation attacks America just like Japan did then the dynamic changes.
Sending weapons takes longer than sending troops unless allies are already trained in there use.
What if a country is overrun and the scenarios that I paid out take place?
What if chemical weapons are used?
It's not the simple things that need considering and addressing before they happen. It's the hard things....
So what intervention warrants US response then ? Clearly we doing everything wrong in the geo political spectrum. We have to take care of ourselves first in case you didn't notice everything happening here.
That's a question for you. I'm not sure why you keep asking me what you should do. It's your country.
What is "everything" happening in the USA?
How would that compare to a genocide happening somewhere else in the world that you could, with or without allies, intervene to prevent?
What's your threshold of what is acceptable?
Ok then it's my country. Issue resolved.
If you like.
Smart answer, but you avoided the difficult part of the "simple" solution you proposed.
You started the thread, so you can declare victory if you wish.
Here is a little contemplation for you did Uk people vote for Brexit ?is it not a isolationism policy? So on that standard why can't we ? "
We are not in a competition with you. You can do what you wish and we can do what we wish. They are independent.
Brexit was, allegedly, to create a "Global" Britain and open it to the world whilst simultaneously closing it to any foreigners that are not immediately "useful" to us.
The reality is that Brexit was anything anyone wanted to be.
It sounds like your definition of isolationism may be similar.
"Cake and eat it" as a certain Brexit cheerleader said.
Except, that isn't ever true in the end. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"You started the thread, so you can declare victory if you wish.
She has done.
She won. not technically I need to work on my nuances. He made a lot of great points. I think it's a culture difference and understanding. My check mate is weak ."
You didn't answer any of the hard questions about the consequences of the largest economic and military power withdrawing from the world when they can directly prevent appealing acts of savagery. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"You started the thread, so you can declare victory if you wish.
She has done.
She won. not technically I need to work on my nuances. He made a lot of great points. I think it's a culture difference and understanding. My check mate is weak .
You didn't answer any of the hard questions about the consequences of the largest economic and military power withdrawing from the world when they can directly prevent appealing acts of savagery."
is because we can if we choose a not good enough standpoint? Your people voted for Brexit? Literally a stand alone policy. Expect the NATO equation. Attack on one is a attack on all article 5. Why do we need to be be the saviors again? All of Europe can handle the situation. Your not that inept now are you.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Except "
such a oddity we scream isolation.. no no no.you can't do that don't you think it's a little biased twords our views on a geopolitical scale ? World superpowers don't get there alone without the sweat and tears off the backs of ordinary people. Tired of being the superpower in a time of need. Yet disdain over the values in that time of need is irrelevant in the culture of that nation. Unless it suits a specific narrative that benefits the other.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You started the thread, so you can declare victory if you wish.
She has done.
She won. not technically I need to work on my nuances. He made a lot of great points. I think it's a culture difference and understanding. My check mate is weak .
You didn't answer any of the hard questions about the consequences of the largest economic and military power withdrawing from the world when they can directly prevent appealing acts of savagery. is because we can if we choose a not good enough standpoint? Your people voted for Brexit? Literally a stand alone policy. Expect the NATO equation. Attack on one is a attack on all article 5. Why do we need to be be the saviors again? All of Europe can handle the situation. Your not that inept now are you.
"
Saviours again? Please explain |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"You started the thread, so you can declare victory if you wish.
She has done.
She won. not technically I need to work on my nuances. He made a lot of great points. I think it's a culture difference and understanding. My check mate is weak .
You didn't answer any of the hard questions about the consequences of the largest economic and military power withdrawing from the world when they can directly prevent appealing acts of savagery. is because we can if we choose a not good enough standpoint? Your people voted for Brexit? Literally a stand alone policy. Expect the NATO equation. Attack on one is a attack on all article 5. Why do we need to be be the saviors again? All of Europe can handle the situation. Your not that inept now are you.
Saviours again? Please explain"
are we not ? Perfectly happy to pull all those bases back in foreign countries. Why are we there now when everyone can stand alone. Your GDP for defense is no where near ours now is it? Do we need to be there for quick response yes or no. You can handle it with your self interests. Why involve us again ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"You started the thread, so you can declare victory if you wish.
She has done.
She won. not technically I need to work on my nuances. He made a lot of great points. I think it's a culture difference and understanding. My check mate is weak .
You didn't answer any of the hard questions about the consequences of the largest economic and military power withdrawing from the world when they can directly prevent appealing acts of savagery. is because we can if we choose a not good enough standpoint? Your people voted for Brexit? Literally a stand alone policy. Expect the NATO equation. Attack on one is a attack on all article 5. Why do we need to be be the saviors again? All of Europe can handle the situation. Your not that inept now are you.
Saviours again? Please explain are we not ? Perfectly happy to pull all those bases back in foreign countries. Why are we there now when everyone can stand alone. Your GDP for defense is no where near ours now is it? Do we need to be there for quick response yes or no. You can handle it with your self interests. Why involve us again ?
"
literally the Uk was a superpower maybe it's time you take that mantle back. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You started the thread, so you can declare victory if you wish.
She has done.
She won. not technically I need to work on my nuances. He made a lot of great points. I think it's a culture difference and understanding. My check mate is weak .
You didn't answer any of the hard questions about the consequences of the largest economic and military power withdrawing from the world when they can directly prevent appealing acts of savagery. is because we can if we choose a not good enough standpoint? Your people voted for Brexit? Literally a stand alone policy. Expect the NATO equation. Attack on one is a attack on all article 5. Why do we need to be be the saviors again? All of Europe can handle the situation. Your not that inept now are you.
Saviours again? Please explain are we not ? Perfectly happy to pull all those bases back in foreign countries. Why are we there now when everyone can stand alone. Your GDP for defense is no where near ours now is it? Do we need to be there for quick response yes or no. You can handle it with your self interests. Why involve us again ?
"
Because it serves the US's interests. No US base is there because the US was asked to put it there.
The US has bases all over the globe so it can react to threats to it, wherever they may be.
It has nothing to do with the US doing things for others.
The US does what it wants, always has. America isn't one to bow to the pressure of others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"You started the thread, so you can declare victory if you wish.
She has done.
She won. not technically I need to work on my nuances. He made a lot of great points. I think it's a culture difference and understanding. My check mate is weak .
You didn't answer any of the hard questions about the consequences of the largest economic and military power withdrawing from the world when they can directly prevent appealing acts of savagery. is because we can if we choose a not good enough standpoint? Your people voted for Brexit? Literally a stand alone policy. Expect the NATO equation. Attack on one is a attack on all article 5. Why do we need to be be the saviors again? All of Europe can handle the situation. Your not that inept now are you.
Saviours again? Please explain are we not ? Perfectly happy to pull all those bases back in foreign countries. Why are we there now when everyone can stand alone. Your GDP for defense is no where near ours now is it? Do we need to be there for quick response yes or no. You can handle it with your self interests. Why involve us again ?
Because it serves the US's interests. No US base is there because the US was asked to put it there.
The US has bases all over the globe so it can react to threats to it, wherever they may be.
It has nothing to do with the US doing things for others.
The US does what it wants, always has. America isn't one to bow to the pressure of others."
Lol you remember trump's threat to leave NATO and pull troops out of Germany? Umm it was real until Biden rescinded that order. You were saying ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You started the thread, so you can declare victory if you wish.
She has done.
She won. not technically I need to work on my nuances. He made a lot of great points. I think it's a culture difference and understanding. My check mate is weak .
You didn't answer any of the hard questions about the consequences of the largest economic and military power withdrawing from the world when they can directly prevent appealing acts of savagery. is because we can if we choose a not good enough standpoint? Your people voted for Brexit? Literally a stand alone policy. Expect the NATO equation. Attack on one is a attack on all article 5. Why do we need to be be the saviors again? All of Europe can handle the situation. Your not that inept now are you.
Saviours again? Please explain are we not ? Perfectly happy to pull all those bases back in foreign countries. Why are we there now when everyone can stand alone. Your GDP for defense is no where near ours now is it? Do we need to be there for quick response yes or no. You can handle it with your self interests. Why involve us again ?
Because it serves the US's interests. No US base is there because the US was asked to put it there.
The US has bases all over the globe so it can react to threats to it, wherever they may be.
It has nothing to do with the US doing things for others.
The US does what it wants, always has. America isn't one to bow to the pressure of others.
Lol you remember trump's threat to leave NATO and pull troops out of Germany? Umm it was real until Biden rescinded that order. You were saying ? "
Because the US wanted to, both times.
The US is in NATO because the US benefits from NATO. If the US didn't benefit, it would not take part.
That is how alliances work.
To think this makes the US anyones saviour is just American Exceptionalism.
We benefit yes, we are not saved. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"You started the thread, so you can declare victory if you wish.
She has done.
She won. not technically I need to work on my nuances. He made a lot of great points. I think it's a culture difference and understanding. My check mate is weak .
You didn't answer any of the hard questions about the consequences of the largest economic and military power withdrawing from the world when they can directly prevent appealing acts of savagery. is because we can if we choose a not good enough standpoint? Your people voted for Brexit? Literally a stand alone policy. Expect the NATO equation. Attack on one is a attack on all article 5. Why do we need to be be the saviors again? All of Europe can handle the situation. Your not that inept now are you.
Saviours again? Please explain are we not ? Perfectly happy to pull all those bases back in foreign countries. Why are we there now when everyone can stand alone. Your GDP for defense is no where near ours now is it? Do we need to be there for quick response yes or no. You can handle it with your self interests. Why involve us again ?
Because it serves the US's interests. No US base is there because the US was asked to put it there.
The US has bases all over the globe so it can react to threats to it, wherever they may be.
It has nothing to do with the US doing things for others.
The US does what it wants, always has. America isn't one to bow to the pressure of others.
Lol you remember trump's threat to leave NATO and pull troops out of Germany? Umm it was real until Biden rescinded that order. You were saying ?
Because the US wanted to, both times.
The US is in NATO because the US benefits from NATO. If the US didn't benefit, it would not take part.
That is how alliances work.
To think this makes the US anyones saviour is just American Exceptionalism.
We benefit yes, we are not saved."
so pulling out of Germany and any other forgien nation is now not acceptable . Do you see your logic. Is it expeptionalism or a need ponder that. Your double edge sword is blunt on your side. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You started the thread, so you can declare victory if you wish.
She has done.
She won. not technically I need to work on my nuances. He made a lot of great points. I think it's a culture difference and understanding. My check mate is weak .
You didn't answer any of the hard questions about the consequences of the largest economic and military power withdrawing from the world when they can directly prevent appealing acts of savagery. is because we can if we choose a not good enough standpoint? Your people voted for Brexit? Literally a stand alone policy. Expect the NATO equation. Attack on one is a attack on all article 5. Why do we need to be be the saviors again? All of Europe can handle the situation. Your not that inept now are you.
Saviours again? Please explain are we not ? Perfectly happy to pull all those bases back in foreign countries. Why are we there now when everyone can stand alone. Your GDP for defense is no where near ours now is it? Do we need to be there for quick response yes or no. You can handle it with your self interests. Why involve us again ?
Because it serves the US's interests. No US base is there because the US was asked to put it there.
The US has bases all over the globe so it can react to threats to it, wherever they may be.
It has nothing to do with the US doing things for others.
The US does what it wants, always has. America isn't one to bow to the pressure of others.
Lol you remember trump's threat to leave NATO and pull troops out of Germany? Umm it was real until Biden rescinded that order. You were saying ?
Because the US wanted to, both times.
The US is in NATO because the US benefits from NATO. If the US didn't benefit, it would not take part.
That is how alliances work.
To think this makes the US anyones saviour is just American Exceptionalism.
We benefit yes, we are not saved. so pulling out of Germany and any other forgien nation is now not acceptable . Do you see your logic. Is it expeptionalism or a need ponder that. Your double edge sword is blunt on your side."
Where did I say the US couldn't pull out?
I didn't.
I said the US does what the US wants, it can pull out or not, it is up to the US.
American Exceptionalism is thinking the US are a saviour when it is not.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"You started the thread, so you can declare victory if you wish.
She has done.
She won. not technically I need to work on my nuances. He made a lot of great points. I think it's a culture difference and understanding. My check mate is weak .
You didn't answer any of the hard questions about the consequences of the largest economic and military power withdrawing from the world when they can directly prevent appealing acts of savagery. is because we can if we choose a not good enough standpoint? Your people voted for Brexit? Literally a stand alone policy. Expect the NATO equation. Attack on one is a attack on all article 5. Why do we need to be be the saviors again? All of Europe can handle the situation. Your not that inept now are you.
Saviours again? Please explain are we not ? Perfectly happy to pull all those bases back in foreign countries. Why are we there now when everyone can stand alone. Your GDP for defense is no where near ours now is it? Do we need to be there for quick response yes or no. You can handle it with your self interests. Why involve us again ?
Because it serves the US's interests. No US base is there because the US was asked to put it there.
The US has bases all over the globe so it can react to threats to it, wherever they may be.
It has nothing to do with the US doing things for others.
The US does what it wants, always has. America isn't one to bow to the pressure of others.
Lol you remember trump's threat to leave NATO and pull troops out of Germany? Umm it was real until Biden rescinded that order. You were saying ?
Because the US wanted to, both times.
The US is in NATO because the US benefits from NATO. If the US didn't benefit, it would not take part.
That is how alliances work.
To think this makes the US anyones saviour is just American Exceptionalism.
We benefit yes, we are not saved. so pulling out of Germany and any other forgien nation is now not acceptable . Do you see your logic. Is it expeptionalism or a need ponder that. Your double edge sword is blunt on your side.
Where did I say the US couldn't pull out?
I didn't.
I said the US does what the US wants, it can pull out or not, it is up to the US.
American Exceptionalism is thinking the US are a saviour when it is not.
"
yet we tried and Euro voices screamed foul did they not ? Back to same ole protection for Europe. Is it "American" Exceptionalism or geopolitical . The draw down was going to occur was it not for a new administration. So your thought process is kind of weak. I didnt say we exceptional you brought that up the funny thing is I would love the bases being removed and you the one arguing about America does what it does. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"yet we tried and Euro voices screamed foul did they not ? Back to same ole protection for Europe. Is it "American" Exceptionalism or geopolitical . The draw down was going to occur was it not for a new administration. So your thought process is kind of weak. I didnt say we exceptional you brought that up the funny thing is I would love the bases being removed and you the one arguing about America does what it does."
You were going to break treaties, of course that is going to get backlash. The US would be the same if it were the other way round.
you are the ones claiming the US are "saviours" that is what american exceptionalism is. It also simply isn't true.
Europe didn't have a problem with the US pulling out because we "needed" the US to do something, we had a problem because the US said they were going to fill a role in a treaty and was then pulling out. So everything would have to be reconfigured. No-one likes broken promises. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"yet we tried and Euro voices screamed foul did they not ? Back to same ole protection for Europe. Is it "American" Exceptionalism or geopolitical . The draw down was going to occur was it not for a new administration. So your thought process is kind of weak. I didnt say we exceptional you brought that up the funny thing is I would love the bases being removed and you the one arguing about America does what it does.
You were going to break treaties, of course that is going to get backlash. The US would be the same if it were the other way round.
you are the ones claiming the US are "saviours" that is what american exceptionalism is. It also simply isn't true.
Europe didn't have a problem with the US pulling out because we "needed" the US to do something, we had a problem because the US said they were going to fill a role in a treaty and was then pulling out. So everything would have to be reconfigured. No-one likes broken promises."
I simply stated we should pull out and quit yet you scream exceptionalism . Leaving is what you wish for you understand my original post ? America first policy or is your bias twords American expecptionalism clouding your thoughts. So you saying we exceptional only when convenient? Is that what you saying ? That GDP can go a long way in our society. Our global projection is no more in my opinion. It solves nothing. Except disdain from people like you. I see it with your " exeptionalism" rant. Simple question yes or no quit dancing around the subject. Yes we need to leave and be isolationist or no.Not that hard of a concept. I all for going back to British imperialism take another stab at it clearly with Brexit you heading in that direction. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I simply stated we should pull out and quit yet you scream exceptionalism . Leaving is what you wish for you understand my original post ? America first policy or is your bias twords American expecptionalism clouding your thoughts. So you saying we exceptional only when convenient? Is that what you saying ? That GDP can go a long way in our society. Our global projection is no more in my opinion. It solves nothing. Except disdain from people like you. I see it with your " exeptionalism" rant. Simple question yes or no quit dancing around the subject. Yes we need to leave and be isolationist or no.Not that hard of a concept. I all for going back to British imperialism take another stab at it clearly with Brexit you heading in that direction."
You are rewriting the flow of the conversation. I asked what you meant by the US being a Saviour again. That is where this conversation started.
The fact you think the US has been a saviour or would be again is American Exceptionalism, you are holding the US and its abilities to a higher status than is warranted. A lot of people i the UK do it about our country too, but that would be UK exceptionalism. It isn't an insult its a description of a phenomenon.
I have no disdain for the US in this matter. I actually think they do a lot of good with it, there's some bad too but that can be said about any country with a global presence.
It is my opinion you are taking your dislike for me and reading malice where it is not.
I wouldn't go back to British imperialism because that is the most shameful period of British history.
You cannot be isolation list and still have trade, not in the long run. In the long run alliances and treaties have to be made.
And that's how we ended up with the global balance we have now. Every step of the way the US did what it thought best for the US
The US needs to act in the US's best interest, which is what I have said from the start. (I am assuming that is what the "simple question" was about). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"You started the thread, so you can declare victory if you wish.
She has done.
She won. not technically I need to work on my nuances. He made a lot of great points. I think it's a culture difference and understanding. My check mate is weak .
You didn't answer any of the hard questions about the consequences of the largest economic and military power withdrawing from the world when they can directly prevent appealing acts of savagery. is because we can if we choose a not good enough standpoint? Your people voted for Brexit? Literally a stand alone policy. Expect the NATO equation. Attack on one is a attack on all article 5. Why do we need to be be the saviors again? All of Europe can handle the situation. Your not that inept now are you.
"
You didn't say "if you chose". You simply did not respond.
So there is no point at which the US as a country should intervene?
As the most powerful economic and military power there is no act of cruelty or violence against others that you should respond to.
Just a bystander in the world?
"My people" did not vote for Brexit.
A tiny majority voted for whatever version of Brexit they thought they were getting. Either expansive or isolationist. Nobody actually knows.
Half the country think it's a stupid idea.
Why do you keep referring to Brexit? It has no relevance to what the USA does.
You created NATO to push your borders thousands of miles away. You didn't actually want to be alone in the world facing one hostile military and political power in the Soviet Union.
Now there are two in Russia and China.
Do you think that they'll just leave you alone as they become more powerful?
You benefit as much as anyone else.
That's what a mutual benefit is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Except such a oddity we scream isolation.. no no no.you can't do that don't you think it's a little biased twords our views on a geopolitical scale ? World superpowers don't get there alone without the sweat and tears off the backs of ordinary people. Tired of being the superpower in a time of need. Yet disdain over the values in that time of need is irrelevant in the culture of that nation. Unless it suits a specific narrative that benefits the other. "
You can do what you want to.
Everyone on this thread except for one has said as such.
Do you want to feel needed?
Multiple people have explained that your country has behaved as it has for its own self-interest which happens to align with the interests of others.
It's a trade, just like in that of goods and services. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Except such a oddity we scream isolation.. no no no.you can't do that don't you think it's a little biased twords our views on a geopolitical scale ? World superpowers don't get there alone without the sweat and tears off the backs of ordinary people. Tired of being the superpower in a time of need. Yet disdain over the values in that time of need is irrelevant in the culture of that nation. Unless it suits a specific narrative that benefits the other.
You can do what you want to.
Everyone on this thread except for one has said as such.
Do you want to feel needed?
Multiple people have explained that your country has behaved as it has for its own self-interest which happens to align with the interests of others.
It's a trade, just like in that of goods and services."
Guess we will have to see in 2024 this outcome. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Except such a oddity we scream isolation.. no no no.you can't do that don't you think it's a little biased twords our views on a geopolitical scale ? World superpowers don't get there alone without the sweat and tears off the backs of ordinary people. Tired of being the superpower in a time of need. Yet disdain over the values in that time of need is irrelevant in the culture of that nation. Unless it suits a specific narrative that benefits the other.
You can do what you want to.
Everyone on this thread except for one has said as such.
Do you want to feel needed?
Multiple people have explained that your country has behaved as it has for its own self-interest which happens to align with the interests of others.
It's a trade, just like in that of goods and services.
Guess we will have to see in 2024 this outcome. "
That doesn't answer or address anything in this thread. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Except such a oddity we scream isolation.. no no no.you can't do that don't you think it's a little biased twords our views on a geopolitical scale ? World superpowers don't get there alone without the sweat and tears off the backs of ordinary people. Tired of being the superpower in a time of need. Yet disdain over the values in that time of need is irrelevant in the culture of that nation. Unless it suits a specific narrative that benefits the other.
You can do what you want to.
Everyone on this thread except for one has said as such.
Do you want to feel needed?
Multiple people have explained that your country has behaved as it has for its own self-interest which happens to align with the interests of others.
It's a trade, just like in that of goods and services.
Guess we will have to see in 2024 this outcome.
That doesn't answer or address anything in this thread."
2024 is a election year. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Except such a oddity we scream isolation.. no no no.you can't do that don't you think it's a little biased twords our views on a geopolitical scale ? World superpowers don't get there alone without the sweat and tears off the backs of ordinary people. Tired of being the superpower in a time of need. Yet disdain over the values in that time of need is irrelevant in the culture of that nation. Unless it suits a specific narrative that benefits the other.
You can do what you want to.
Everyone on this thread except for one has said as such.
Do you want to feel needed?
Multiple people have explained that your country has behaved as it has for its own self-interest which happens to align with the interests of others.
It's a trade, just like in that of goods and services.
Guess we will have to see in 2024 this outcome.
That doesn't answer or address anything in this thread.
2024 is a election year. "
How does that affect the hypothetical discussion of how the US SHOULD act regarding isolationism?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Except such a oddity we scream isolation.. no no no.you can't do that don't you think it's a little biased twords our views on a geopolitical scale ? World superpowers don't get there alone without the sweat and tears off the backs of ordinary people. Tired of being the superpower in a time of need. Yet disdain over the values in that time of need is irrelevant in the culture of that nation. Unless it suits a specific narrative that benefits the other.
You can do what you want to.
Everyone on this thread except for one has said as such.
Do you want to feel needed?
Multiple people have explained that your country has behaved as it has for its own self-interest which happens to align with the interests of others.
It's a trade, just like in that of goods and services.
Guess we will have to see in 2024 this outcome.
That doesn't answer or address anything in this thread.
2024 is a election year.
How does that affect the hypothetical discussion of how the US SHOULD act regarding isolationism?
"
Your input was appreciated |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
