I am SO disgusted

[Interviewer/surveyer]

Firstoff, Id like to make it clear that I am an American, and one that is against the Iraqi war.

Secondly, I understand that there are people that are pointing out why the 9/11 attacks happened. That is, why our enemies thought it was right to attack us like they did. That is fine to discuss why they did it, there is nothing wrong with that.

BUT, when i have to argue with someone as to whether or not we deserved it, I think that really crosses the line. I don't think I can name one country that deserves to have 3,000 of its civilians killed in such a barbaric way, and I can't believe some people think that way.

[Scuba_Steve]

I'm not of the opinion that american DESERVED it, simply that it really was inevitable and that people shouldn't be so shocked.

[Der Übermensch]

No one deserved to die... But we were inviting the rage of the Fundementalist Islamic world... You get the difference?

[Interviewer/surveyer]

No one deserved to die... But we were inviting the rage of the Fundementalist Islamic world... You get the difference?

yeah, I do.

[Mr. Ron]

No one deserved to die... But we were inviting the rage of the Fundementalist Islamic world... You get the difference?

^^^^

[Der Übermensch]

yeah, I do.

Then whats the issue here...?
Cause (I assume you're talking about the Mindset thread), thats all they are saying in there...

[Eliminator]

guys this really crosses the line this must be stopped

[Mr. Ron]

A skub supporter like you WOULD say that :mad:

[Eliminator]

i am neutral to the skub issue i only wish to bring it to a wider audience and let them decide

fair and balanced

[Mr. Ron]

I'm on to you. -_-

[Eliminator]

the pro-skubs are teaching you lies so you will be onto me and not them they are trying to distract you from the real cause

[John Paul Harrison]

i too am disgusted when i encounter a very small, minority opinion i dislike.

[Reaganista]

BUT, when i have to argue with someone as to whether or not we deserved it, I think that really crosses the line. I don't think I can name one country that deserves to have 3,000 of its civilians killed in such a barbaric way, and I can't believe some people think that way.
what does someone who kills 3,000 civilians deserve

[Danger Bird]

I don't think I can name one country that deserves to have 3,000 of its civilians killed in such a barbaric way
I think the government would be able to name quite a few...

[~kc~]

do you honestly think the terrorists were out to get individual people? the 3000+ people that died were the unlucky ones, it could of been anybody. The islams had it in for america as a country and the way its run.

Whos to say whether america deserved it or not?

[PerpetualBurn]

BUT, when i have to argue with someone as to whether or not we deserved it, I think that really crosses the line.

Of course you have to consider whether the attack was just or not.

[Smokey D]

do you honestly think the terrorists were out to get individual people? the 3000+ people that died were the unlucky ones, it could of been anybody. The islams had it in for america as a country and the way its run.

Whos to say whether america deserved it or not?

The problem being that attacking America is not the same thing as attacking three thousand individuals.

[SoulSeekerz]

So we have well over 3,000 dead soldiers. The death toll in Iraq for civilians, military and enemies must total well over 100,000 by now.

[Smokey D]

That's irrelevant.

[SoulSeekerz]

Not if you're an Iraqi national.

[RockAndRoll]

I think his point is that's irrelevant as to whether 3,000 american citiznes deserved to die.

[SoulSeekerz]

No one deserves to die in battle. People choose to serve this country and give their lives for our freedom, which we sometimes take for granted.

[Smokey D]

No, it's still irrelevant.

[Mr. Ron]

No one deserves to die in battle. People choose to serve this country and give their lives for our freedom, which we sometimes take for granted.

Do you think our soldiers fight for "our freedom" in this war?

[SoulSeekerz]

Do you think our soldiers fight for "our freedom" in this war?
Absolutely. If we didn't keep these cells of terrorists in check, Our freedom would slowly dissipate and we would start to fear going out into a public place, to be blown apart randomly by terrorist bombers.
When I go to see a movie or grocery shopping, my freedom, and secuirty and peace of mind is a given. Other countries don't have that given.

[Smokey D]

Most of them do.

And terrorist cells can't do anything to reduce your freedom in any meaningful way. The chances of you being the victim of an attack are pretty miniscule, and if you limit your activities in response to the fear those attacks generate, you have restricted your freedom yourself.

[Mr. Ron]

Absolutely. If we didn't keep these cells of terrorists in check, Our freedom would slowly dissipate and we would start to fear going out into a public place, to be blown apart randomly by terrorist bombers.
When I go to see a movie or grocery shopping, my freedom, and secuirty and peace of mind is a given. Other countries don't have that given.

Our freedom has already been dissipated by our own law makers. :^/

[SoulSeekerz]

Those are random acts of violence by disturbed people. Much different from cells fo Jihad terrorists trained to takes human lives and commit suicide in the name of Allah.

[Mr. Ron]

Those are random acts of violence by disturbed people. Much different from cells fo Jihad terrorists trained to takes human lives and commit suicide in the name of Allah.

Um, a terrorist that straps a bomb to himself and blows himself up is an act of terrorism. Nothing is random about it.

[SoulSeekerz]

Mr. Ron, you deleted the question you asked, so my answer now makes no sense.
Your AK47 reference is missing.

[~kc~]

The problem being that attacking America is not the same thing as attacking three thousand individuals.

they didnt attack the people they attacked the world trade center, a crucial part of americas trading, an attempt of corrupting the country.

the people were in the wrong place at the wrong time

[Mr. Ron]

Mr. Ron, you deleted the question you asked, so my answer now makes no sense.
Your AK47 reference is missing.

Yeah I took it out after I posted it because I didn't see the sense in explaining it that far.


I said that it doesn't take much for a person to make a bomb or get gun and commit an act of terrorism, although minuscule the probability. I'm just saying that just because our troops are over there doesn't mean you're 100% safe.

[Smokey D]

they didnt attack the people they attacked the world trade center, a crucial part of americas trading, an attempt of corrupting the country.

the people were in the wrong place at the wrong time

It doesn't matter. It was undertaken with the knowledge and intent that it would kill several thousand civilians as well as damage the US economy.

If the attack was solely meant to cripple infrastructure or something, there are many less lethal ways of doing it.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Just because you understand the reasons something happened doesn't mean you're condoning it, which I think a lot of people are missing completely. The USA has, since its foundation, intervened in foreign countries based on its own self-interests, doesn't deny it, and until Iraq didn't pretend it was doing anything out of the kindness of its heart. It was inevitable that at some point there would be a serious backlash for this attitude, but it's a damn shame it happened the way it did.


But as for soldiers in Iraq fighting for the freedom of your average American, I think it should be pretty obvious by now given that, among other things, the White House COMPLETELY invented any link Iraq had with Al-Qaeda, any impression the American people have that their troops are dying for a good cause should be long gone. Face it guys, your government lied to you because it needed a scapegoat for the failing war on terror, and 3000 American troops and 100 000 Iraqis have paid the price.

[Light Fantastic]

err ill assume you're talking about me but I don't know why you made this thread when I made it quite clear

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14747351&postcount=236


not that the people who died on 9/11 deserved it


you were too disgusted to reply to me even :(

[Reaganista]

Absolutely. If we didn't keep these cells of terrorists in check, Our freedom would slowly dissipate and we would start to fear going out into a public place,
143 people have been murdered so far this year in philadelphia

The USA has, since its foundation, intervened in foreign countries based on its own self-interests, doesn't deny it, and until Iraq didn't pretend it was doing anything out of the kindness of its heart.
um not really

the us has gone through long periods of isolationism where we refused to intervene even though it might serve our interests and we've always turned all our wars into crusades where we were on the side of god, truth, etc and our enemies were purely evil

[Der Übermensch]

At the height if the supposed Isolationist era, we had troops go into Mexico, intoRussia, into Nicaragua multiple times, Haiti multiple times...
There has never been a signifigant period of time in which the United States actually observed a policy of Isolation.

[Reaganista]

you mean except most of the 19th century and 1919-1941

[Der Übermensch]

Um... Yes...
The early 20th Century was when we claimed out moset fervet isolationsim, yet we had more colonial style wars then that at any other point. Boxer Rebellion in 1900-1901. Phillapines from 1898-1902. In 1919-1921 we had troops in Russia. We were in Haiti from 1915-1934. We went into Nicaragua multiple times in the 20's and 30's. We landed at Veracruz in 1914.

In the 19th Century we had the Barbary Wars...two of 'em bookending the War of 1812.... (...to the shores of Tripoli...?)
The period between the Mexican War (1846-48) and the Spanish American War (1898) is the longest period the US has gone without ****ing with another nation...

Even that is a minstatement though really...
Commodore Perry in Japan, 1854... Plus some mild protective actions there later during the Mej restoration ('68).

We actually invaded Samoa in the 1880's... as well as Hawai'i.

And then don't foget the Plains Indian Wars in the post Civil War era, which, in many people opinions (including mine) would consitute intervening with (and subjugating) another people.

[Iskandar]

Absolutely. If we didn't keep these cells of terrorists in check, Our freedom would slowly dissipate and we would start to fear going out into a public place, to be blown apart randomly by terrorist bombers.If you fear going outside because you might get blown up, the terrorists have accomplished their objective.

[TheDarkHorse]

BUT, when i have to argue with someone as to whether or not we deserved it, I think that really crosses the line. I don't think I can name one country that deserves to have 3,000 of its civilians killed in such a barbaric way, and I can't believe some people think that way.
I can totally see why people think we deserved it.

Personally, I'm against any harming of human life.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

the us has gone through long periods of isolationism where we refused to intervene even though it might serve our interests

Isolationism was just a form of preserving american interests. Something along the lines of "why should we go fight the nazis? first lets see if Europe can fight them off, and if they make their way over here, we'll see what we need to do about it."


and we've always turned all our wars into crusades where we were on the side of god, truth, etc and our enemies were purely evil
Yeah, of course. Every party involved in a war has done that since the dawn of time, because otherwise its soldiers wouldn't be able to ruthlessly kill the enemy. What I was saying was just that the determining factor when the US makes ANY decision is "is this in our self-interest to do?". Why do you think the US hasn't gone into Darfur? That's as big a humanitarian crisis as Saddam ever was.

I don't mean to sound like I'm judging this attitude, I'm just trying to emphasize that American policy-making is purely reliant on American self-interests. There's no charity involved, and little to no consideration for what people outside the USA might go through based on the US's decision. That's why there was an embargo on Iraq for 10 years, that's why there's still an embargo on Cuba, that's why the US hasn't gone into Darfur, and that's what ultimately bit the US in the *** on 9/11.

[Reaganista]

Um... Yes...
The early 20th Century was when we claimed out moset fervet isolationsim, yet we had more colonial style wars then that at any other point. Boxer Rebellion in 1900-1901. Phillapines from 1898-1902. In 1919-1921 we had troops in Russia. We were in Haiti from 1915-1934. We went into Nicaragua multiple times in the 20's and 30's. We landed at Veracruz in 1914.

In the 19th Century we had the Barbary Wars...two of 'em bookending the War of 1812.... (...to the shores of Tripoli...?)
The period between the Mexican War (1846-48) and the Spanish American War (1898) is the longest period the US has gone without ****ing with another nation...

Even that is a minstatement though really...
Commodore Perry in Japan, 1854... Plus some mild protective actions there later during the Mej restoration ('68).

We actually invaded Samoa in the 1880's... as well as Hawai'i.

And then don't foget the Plains Indian Wars in the post Civil War era, which, in many people opinions (including mine) would consitute intervening with (and subjugating) another people.
the indians were not a state continuing wars against them does not constitute an interventionist foriegn policy, neither do a few very short-lived and relatively minor engagements over the course of a 50 year period make that an era of interventionism

and the whole early 20th century thing is a total straw man and has nothing to do with anything i said

[Der Übermensch]

As I said, the Indians are a mixed opinion thing, but seriously, the 20's and 30's were one of the the largest concentrations of Interventionism the US has ever seen.

It does have to do with your point. You said "the us has gone through long periods of isolationism where we refused to intervene even though it might serve our interests "
And I pointed out that regardless of rhetoric, the US has never actually observed substantial isolationism.
The Early 20th Century thing is IMPERATIVE to the arguement, as it encapsulates my entire point. At the same point we were making the biggest stink about being Isolationist, we were also intervening at an unprecedented rate.

[Reaganista]

As I said, the Indians are a mixed opinion thing, but seriously, the 20's and 30's were one of the the largest concentrations of Interventionism the US has ever seen.
no
And I pointed out that regardless of rhetoric, the US has never actually observed substantial isolationism.
yes

[Interviewer/surveyer]

I can totally see why people think we deserved it.

Personally, I'm against any harming of human life.

I guess i can "understand" why some people hate the U.S. and want us all to die, i would think its annoying when everyone in the U.S. says, "were the greatest country in the world", when there are countries with a better style of living and a better economy.
But like I have said, there are MANY countries that have done despicable things in the past. There are many middle eastern nations that have done and are countinuing to do terrible things, but I don't think that killing 3,000 of their civilians is the answer.

[Der Übermensch]

No!?
Are you simply ignoring what I wrote?

Lets see...
1900-1941, excempting the involvement in the Great War...
Philappines, 1898-1902 (mid 1910's depending what you count though)
Chine 1900
Panama 1904
Mexico
-Veracruz 1914
-Villa 1915
Dominican Republic 1915-1922
Russia 1918-1922
China 1927
Nicaragua on and off a few times, and then occupied 1909 until 1933
Haiti 1915-1934

I know I missed a few there.... and don't get nitpicky about the dates, I'm aware I might be a year or two off on some of them, but I think you get the point?

Smedly Butler would be ashamed of you :(

[TheDarkHorse]

but I don't think that killing 3,000 of their civilians is the answer.

I only see war as a solution if it puts an end to the harming of human life.

America uses war for power and riches, and toots its horn to self-proclaim themselves as the best.

When 16 rag-tag saudis hijack a plane using boxcutters and kill thousands, I dont think that killing was necessary, but it is quite shameful for a nation like this.

[Mr. Ron]

I only see war as a solution if it puts an end to the harming of human life.

America uses war for power and riches, and toots its horn to self-proclaim themselves as the best.

When 16 rag-tag afghanis hijack a plane using boxcutters and kill thousands, I dont think that killing was necessary, but it is quite shameful for a nation like this.

Thats been said before throughout history, and we all know how history goes. :^/

[Der Übermensch]

It was 16 rag-tag Saudi's, but the jist of the point still stands...

[TheDarkHorse]

Thats been said before throughout history, and we all know how history goes. :^/

no i think you're off actually
It was 16 rag-tag Saudi's, but the jist of the point still stands...
thank you

[Reaganista]

Dominican Republic 1915-1922
Russia 1918-1922
Nicaragua on and off a few times, and then occupied 1909 until 1933
Haiti 1915-1934
sorry maintaining minor engagements from a previously non interventionist era does not make an era one of interventionism
an interventionist US wouldve been actively involved in europe and european-colonized areas while the whole continent went to hell

[Der Übermensch]

That makes no sense. I assume you mean maintaining minor engagements from a previous, interventionist era does not make the latter era one of interventionism. Yes?
But that not what I'm saying. I'm saying that because we maintained the interventinism, there never was a non-interventionist era during the time period, regardless of what the rehtoric was.

[Reaganista]

?
um grats on restating i guess

[Der Übermensch]

Restating what?
So now you agree with me? Well, probably not, but you aren't making much sense right now...

[Reaganista]

i responded to what you said

you restated what you said

cut it out

[Der Übermensch]

You didn't respond though.... you made a stupid statement that didn't even make any sense. I can provide numerous examples to back up my claims... you don't have any. You "cut it out".

Also, I wasn't restating... I was clarifying my point, since you obviously don't understand it if your 'response' has anything to say on the matter.

[Reaganista]

sorry a bunch of virtually meaningless latin american engagements that began before WWI and were all ended during the interwar period does not make the era one of interventism
especially considering the total lack of intervention in europe or european held areas
which was most of the world

this is very simple

[Der Übermensch]

Actually I would say that the lack of much happening in Europe was merely keeping within the spririt of the Monroe Doctrine; not indicitive of a lack of intervention. We didn't mess with European dominions in order to have the carte blanche to mess with our own geographical area.
China was open to everyone though.

But also, they weren't meaningless... They were all important factors of American buisness growth. I'll quote good old Smeldey Butler for that, "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested."

You are right though on one thing. We didn't intervene in Europe much... Russia was about the only time. Why? Because Big buisness didn't need us to. Big business needed us to **** with Latin America and China.

The only period of time that could be called a 'non-interventionist' era would be 1935-1940, as that was when Roosevelt did the Good Neighbor policy, and ending with Destroyers for Bases/Lend Lease, but I think that a period of five years hardley consitutes an 'era'.

[Reaganista]

no all that meaningless stuff pales in comparison to doing nothing while WWII was breaking out

[Der Übermensch]

I don't see how not intervening in one part of the world dicredits intervening in another part of the world.
By your logic the US is currently isolationist because we aren't intervening in the Sudan.

We were "isolationist" in terms of European politics, sure, but that doesn't mean we were Isolationist on the whole, which you have failed - and will continue to be unable - to prove.

[gregulus]

The U.S. has never actually been "isolationists." As Hunter has pointed out, the United States has been involved in the affairs of countries even during the so-called "isolationist" period, regardless of how small the involvement was.

[TheDarkHorse]

sorry a bunch of virtually meaningless latin american engagements that began before WWI and were all ended during the interwar period does not make the era one of interventism
especially considering the total lack of intervention in europe or european held areas
which was most of the world

this is very simple
No results found for interventism.
Did you mean antirentism (in dictionary) or Internetism (in encyclopedia)?

[Mr. Ron]

Funny, I knew what he was getting at.

[Reaganista]

No results found for interventism.
Did you mean antirentism (in dictionary) or Internetism (in encyclopedia)?

i must spread rep around before i can neg you again

you useless waste

I don't see how not intervening in one part of the world dicredits intervening in another part of the world.
By your logic the US is currently isolationist because we aren't intervening in the Sudan.
no not at all
the situation in the sudan isnt at all analogous to europe between the wars
but you had to have known that already i dont get why you're going on like this

[Der Übermensch]

No. It isn't. Europe was a well established system of sovereign nations, hardly ripe for the plunder. We didn't intervene in Europe because there was nothing in it for us.
Sudan is a wasteland, a failed state. We aren't intervening there because there is nothing in it for us.
I'm going on like this because you're a goddamn idiot if you honestly think the United States has ever been substantially isolationist. Selectively perhaps - Europe has never been somewhere we like to be - but even when we avoidedd there we still liked to tramp around in our own back yard.

[Reaganista]

no sorry interwar europe was a massive threat to the US the sudan is no threat at all
the US did nothing while germany and the soviet union grew into enemies that would take them almost the rest of the century to get rid of and japan was becoming an obvious rival in the pacific
that's isolation on a massively stupid and unexcusable scale

to counter this you provide some latin american engagements which began in the prewar period and were all ended during the interwar period

occupying a latin american country was a completely meaningless activity for a state like the united states and doesn't take away in even the least bit from the massive isolationism of the era on balance

now stop being such a cunt plz with the super-mature adhominems and all that

[gregulus]

Sorry, but because we didn't intervene in Europe doesn't mean we were strictly isolationist. On a larger scale, or a scale of importance, we might not have done anything resounding, but we were clearly involved in the affairs of other nations. Thus, we were not as "isolationist" as we wanted to believe.

[Der Übermensch]

no sorry interwar europe was a massive threat to the US the sudan is no threat at all
the US did nothing while germany and the soviet union grew into enemies that would take them almost the rest of the century to get rid of and japan was becoming an obvious rival in the pacific
that's isolation on a massively stupid and unexcusable scale
Thats three nations.... Wow... And we did try to intervene in the USSR... We landed in Arkangel and Siberia, as I pointed out, and you blindly dismissed.

to counter this you provide some latin american engagements which began in the prewar period and were all ended during the interwar period
They were all ended in 1934/35, and then within 5 years we were sending mountains of aid to the brits. So yes, if you want to be be reeeaaaallly nit picky, I will concede we actually enforced an isolationist policy for about a 5 year period in the late 30's.

occupying a latin american country was a completely meaningless activity for a state like the united states and doesn't take away in even the least bit from the massive isolationism of the era on balance
Occupying a latin american country isn't as signifigant, but it does discredit any active policy of isolationism... It's like saying you're a vegetarian while eating a chicken sandwich, and then when its pointed out by me, you're telling me, "well, it isn't a steak, so it doesn't count". Stop being so eurocentric, it only makes up something like 5% of the world, there is a whole lot else to **** with.
We had a stated policy of intervening in Latin American affairs, and worked with Europe and Japan to plunder China, and expanded our island holdings in the Pacific.

now stop being such a cunt plz with the super-mature adhominems and all that
Well how about you stop being a contrarian asshole? I really don't see how you can keep maintaing this argument, but for the sake of arguing...

Really, I liked you a lot more before the name change... can such a little matter make that much of a difference?

[Reaganista]

Sorry, but because we didn't intervene in Europe doesn't mean we were strictly isolationist. On a larger scale, or a scale of importance, we might not have done anything resounding, but we were clearly involved in the affairs of other nations. Thus, we were not as "isolationist" as we wanted to believe.
wtf does strictly isolationist even mean

Thats three nations.... Wow... And we did try to intervene in the USSR... We landed in Arkangel and Siberia, as I pointed out, and you blindly dismissed.

that's almost the entire sum of us interest...wow...
and landings at arkangel and siberia were nothing compared to what a proactive and interventionist US would have and should have done

They were all ended in 1934/35, and then within 5 years we were sending mountains of aid to the brits. So yes, if you want to be be reeeaaaallly nit picky, I will concede we actually enforced an isolationist policy for about a 5 year period in the late 30's.
no isolationist tendencies began at the end of the war

Occupying a latin american country isn't as signifigant, but it does discredit any active policy of isolationism... It's like saying you're a vegetarian while eating a chicken sandwich,
no
vegetarianism is completely binary
interventionist-isolationist is a continuum

and then when its pointed out by me, you're telling me, "well, it isn't a steak, so it doesn't count". Stop being so eurocentric, it only makes up something like 5% of the world, there is a whole lot else to **** with.

europe and it's colonies
which we completely avoided
made up the vast majority of the world


We had a stated policy of intervening in Latin American affairs, and worked with Europe and Japan to plunder China, and expanded our island holdings in the Pacific.
nobody was plundering anything what a ridiculous misuse of a term

Well how about you stop being a contrarian asshole? I really don't see how you can keep maintaing this argument, but for the sake of arguing...

Really, I liked you a lot more before the name change... can such a little matter make that much of a difference?
hey i feel the same way about you how ironic
slut

[Der Übermensch]

wtf does strictly isolationist even mean


that's almost the entire sum of us interest...wow...
and landings at arkangel and siberia were nothing compared to what a proactive and interventionist US would have and should have done
I agree the US should have been more involved in Europe. Our standing down in the Spanish Civil War was one of the biggest factors of their defeat. But Europe (and its colonies) wasn't the whole world.


no isolationist tendencies began at the end of the war
Russia (1918/19), China (1927), Nicaragua (1923 + 1926).


no
vegetarianism is completely binary
interventionist-isolationist is a continuum
I'm not saying Vegitarianism is like Isolationism. I'm saying you're usage of words follows the same pattern.... Denial of the whole because you aren't taking it to the extreme.


europe and it's colonies
which we completely avoided
made up the vast majority of the world
Monroe Doctrine. We don't **** with their matters, they don't **** with ours. When they did try to, such as Germany's incursions into Venezuela, we didn't exactly take it well, so it would hardly have been sporting of us to say "hand off" to Europe in our hemisphere, and then go and try and get our fingers into their cookie jar.


nobody was plundering anything what a ridiculous misuse of a term
I refer back to the quote by Smedley.

hey i feel the same way about you how ironic
slut
Nice to know we're on the same page on something.
Douche :p

[TheDarkHorse]

i must spread rep around before i can neg you again

you useless waste


im just tired of your piss-poor attempt at being terse

[Reaganista]

I agree the US should have been more involved in Europe. Our standing down in the Spanish Civil War was one of the biggest factors of their defeat. But Europe (and its colonies) wasn't the whole world.

great


Russia (1918/19), China (1927), Nicaragua (1923 + 1926).

man we were in nicaragua before that
and i have no idea what the china 1927 thing is
and ill amend my previous statement to say isolationist tendencies began after wilson became incapacitated

I'm not saying Vegitarianism is like Isolationism. I'm saying you're usage of words follows the same pattern.... Denial of the whole because you aren't taking it to the extreme.
i don't understand at all

Monroe Doctrine. We don't **** with their matters, they don't **** with ours. When they did try to, such as Germany's incursions into Venezuela, we didn't exactly take it well, so it would hardly have been sporting of us to say "hand off" to Europe in our hemisphere, and then go and try and get our fingers into their cookie jar.

the monroe doctrine is fundamentally an isolationist practice

I refer back to the quote by Smedley.

he was an idiot

Nice to know we're on the same page on something.
Douche :p
k

[Der Übermensch]

great


man we were in nicaragua before that
There were three seperate incursions. 1909, 1923, and 1926.
and i have no idea what the china 1927 thing is
An expeditionary force was sent... I don't remember exaclty what they did, but it was in order to force the acceptance of Standard Oil.

and ill amend my previous statement to say isolationist tendencies began after wilson became incapacitated
They ended once Roosevelt Passed the Good Neighbor Policy in the mid 30's.

i don't understand at all
Europe + its holdings is Steak, the rest of the world is Chicken. Just because you don't eat steak doesn't mean you're a vegitarian, as long as you're still eating chicken.
That can't be too hard to grasp...


the monroe doctrine is fundamentally an isolationist practice
No, it's about limiting the interventionism of others, and reserving our right to be the only interventionist in this hemisphere.


he was an idiot
He's one of the greatest Marines who has ever lived...

[Smokey D]

The Monroe Doctrine is isolationist, but the Rooselvelt Corollary is definitely not. It's pretty absurd to say that the US was isolationist because it refused to participate in European affairs. It was still establishing its own hegemonic sphere of influence and any nation engaged in empire building isn't being isolationist.

It would be like saying that splendid isolation meant Britain was being isolationist despite having an empire one quater of the world's landmass.

[Der Übermensch]

The Monroe doctrine was only isolationist in terms of European affairs. It was explicitly interventionist about the New World...

But it's immaterial, since, as you pointed out, the Roosevelt corallary was in effect by that point, and was until R2 took the hot seat.

[Majesty]

I honestly cant decide whether or not Bush cared.

Ive never really liked the guy.

I just remember when 9/11 happened, the news coverage went on for days. It was sad.

[Reaganista]

There were three seperate incursions. 1909, 1923, and 1926.

yeah

An expeditionary force was sent... I don't remember exaclty what they did, but it was in order to force the acceptance of Standard Oil.

w/e

They ended once Roosevelt Passed the Good Neighbor Policy in the mid 30's.

what

they ended once we started killing germans


Europe + its holdings is Steak, the rest of the world is Chicken. Just because you don't eat steak doesn't mean you're a vegitarian, as long as you're still eating chicken.
That can't be too hard to grasp...

yeah and i already said that vegetarianism is binary and isolationism-interventionism is a continuum
that can't be too hard to grasp...

No, it's about limiting the interventionism of others, and reserving our right to be the only interventionist in this hemisphere.

and about agreeing to not intervene in eurasia-africa or the south pacific
which is most of the world and all that


He's one of the greatest Marines who has ever lived...
cool how marine and idiot don't even approach mututally exclusive categories huh

[Der Übermensch]

yeah
So you agree then?


w/e
You're casual dismissal of key facts is merely a highlight of your complete inability to hold a debate.


they ended once we started killing germans
Our intervention ended when we started killing Germans? Isn't that completly counter intuitive?
O, nm. I see what you meant. By ended I meant Interventionism.



yeah and i already said that vegetarianism is binary and isolationism-interventionism is a continuum
that can't be too hard to grasp...
I don't see how 'binary' and 'continum' really matter here, its just a stupid analogy that I think a third grader could comprehend. You don't need to look to far into it.

If you really want a different analogy that is more... fitting... Your gf asks you, "Have you been having an affair?". You say, "I swear I wasn't cheating with Betty," which while true, sidesteps the fact that you have been carrying on with Veronica.
Just cause you aren't ****ing one girl doesn't mean you ain't a cheat. Just cause you aren't ****ing with certain nations doesn't mean you ain't interventionist. Suit you better?


and about agreeing to not intervene in eurasia-africa or the south pacific
which is most of the world and all that
Africa, yea, for the most part, but we did get involved in the Pacific. We almost came to blows with Germany over Samoa at the turn of the century... Be a pretty stupid thing to go to war over though. Just traded a few shots and then butchered some natives if I recall right.


cool how marine and idiot don't even approach mututally exclusive categories huh
Well, you do have have some screw loose to win the medal of honor multiple times... But regardless of Butler's intellectual capacity, his quote is just a simpler way of putting forth what is generally and widely accepted as fact.

[Reaganista]

So you agree then?

yeah i agree with what i said earlier


You're casual dismissal of key facts is merely a highlight of your complete inability to hold a debate.
except it's not a key fact it's a really minor event which you didnt even know the details of


Our intervention ended when we started killing Germans? Isn't that completly counter intuitive?
O, nm. I see what you meant. By ended I meant Interventionism.

oh well you were wrong but it's ok

I don't see how 'binary' and 'continum' really matter here, its just a stupid analogy that I think a third grader could comprehend. You don't need to look to far into it.

If you really want a different analogy that is more... fitting... Your gf asks you, "Have you been having an affair?". You say, "I swear I wasn't cheating with Betty," which while true, sidesteps the fact that you have been carrying on with Veronica.
Just cause you aren't ****ing one girl doesn't mean you ain't a cheat. Just cause you aren't ****ing with certain nations doesn't mean you ain't interventionist. Suit you better?


ok it's become plainly obvious that you dont understand the contrast between binary and continuum


Africa, yea, for the most part, but we did get involved in the Pacific. We almost came to blows with Germany over Samoa at the turn of the century... Be a pretty stupid thing to go to war over though. Just traded a few shots and then butchered some natives if I recall right.

oh wow almost


Well, you do have have some screw loose to win the medal of honor multiple times... But regardless of Butler's intellectual capacity, his quote is just a simpler way of putting forth what is generally and widely accepted as fact.
i never said that the stuff he was talking about never happened ffs
i just said he was a moron

[Der Übermensch]

yeah i agree with what i said earlier
You said yeah to the three seperate dates, so I assume you agree we went in twice after WW1?


except it's not a key fact it's a really minor event which you didnt even know the details of

Unfortunatly, the book which I read about it in is currently in a box, in a garage out in Arlington, Virginia... :( So I can't get much more on that.
Savage Wars of Peace - Max Boot... It's a good read.
What happened that I do recall was Nationalist fighting... I think in Shanghai, and the Navy started shelling to cover a civilian evacuation, and eventually the US landed Marines to simply occupy the city
We landed in China a number of times during the 20's and 30's, but that was the largest force since the Boxer rebellion.


ok it's become plainly obvious that you dont understand the contrast between binary and continuum
Binary is black and white (Easily discernible breaks), Continuum is shades of grey (gradual, no sudden changes). I don't see how that matters though because an analogy using a binary concept can be used to model a contiuum one. In fact I would argue, most continuums are modeled with binaries, because the whole point of an analogy is to put something into simpler terms, and a binary does that. It hyperbolizes to make the differences easier to see.



[quoe]oh wow almost [/quote]
By almost I mean actual declaration of war. We did engage in combat with german troops.


i never said that the stuff he was talking about never happened ffs
i just said he was a moron
Then why were we arguing about his credibility if you didn't want to discredit him...?

[Reaganista]

You said yeah to the three seperate dates, so I assume you agree we went in twice after WW1
um not really



Unfortunatly, the book which I read about it in is currently in a box, in a garage out in Arlington, Virginia... :( So I can't get much more on that.
Savage Wars of Peace - Max Boot... It's a good read.
What happened that I do recall was Nationalist fighting... I think in Shanghai, and the Navy started shelling to cover a civilian evacuation, and eventually the US landed Marines to simply occupy the city
We landed in China a number of times during the 20's and 30's, but that was the largest force since the Boxer rebellion.
k


Binary is black and white (Easily discernible breaks), Continuum is shades of grey (gradual, no sudden changes). I don't see how that matters though because an analogy using a binary concept can be used to model a contiuum one. In fact I would argue, most continuums are modeled with binaries, because the whole point of an analogy is to put something into simpler terms, and a binary does that. It hyperbolizes to make the differences easier to see.

i disagree entirely


Then why were we arguing about his credibility if you didn't want to discredit him...?
huh i just think he's an idiot

[Der Übermensch]

um not really
So we did not land troops there in the 20's, despite documentation to the contrary?

i disagree entirely
I'm wondering what you consider the purpose of an analogy to be then, if not to bring things into simpler terms...
Keeping in a continuum for the example just seems to me to keep the example overly complex.

If you really want that, here you go. Interventinism is like tourettes syndrome. My brother has tourettes syndrome. You wouldn't know if you met him though. He doesn't show any overt signs of it. Only if you watched him for a period of time would you see that sometime's he'll jerk his head slightly to the right. Most of his friends don't even know he has it. While the stereotype of tourettes is often though of as full blown 'ticage' and yelling out obsceneties at inappropriate times, my brother has never shown these signs. Just because he doesn't fit within the sterotype doesn't mean he doesn't have it - there are many levels of tourettes; just like if a country doesn't intervene in some parts of the world, they aren't isolationist.
There's your damn continuum... See how needlessly long that was? The vegitarian example made the same point.

[Reaganista]

So we did not land troops there in the 20's, despite documentation to the contrary?

no we did

I'm wondering what you consider the purpose of an analogy to be then, if not to bring things into simpler terms...

your analogy wasnt analogous it was a complete mistatement

Keeping in a continuum for the example just seems to me to keep the example overly complex.


If you really want that, here you go. Interventinism is like tourettes syndrome. My brother has tourettes syndrome. You wouldn't know if you met him though. He doesn't show any overt signs of it. Only if you watched him for a period of time would you see that sometime's he'll jerk his head slightly to the right. Most of his friends don't even know he has it. While the stereotype of tourettes is often though of as full blown 'ticage' and yelling out obsceneties at inappropriate times, my brother has never shown these signs. Just because he doesn't fit within the sterotype doesn't mean he doesn't have it - there are many levels of tourettes; just like if a country doesn't intervene in some parts of the world, they aren't isolationist.
There's your damn continuum... See how needlessly long that was? The vegitarian example made the same point.
no that's not analogous either you either have a disease or you dont the gradations in symptoms arent really applicable here
unless you mean to say that any engagement with any foreigners completely rules out isolationist tendencies in which case isolationism is useless as a concept

so i guess we need to invent a new term for declining to engage in alliances and we'll use that one

[Der Übermensch]

your analogy wasnt analogous it was a complete mistatement
They are all examples of how just because something isn't taken to the extreme, it doesn't mean that it isn't there. What did you get on your SAT verbal?

no that's not analogous either you either have a disease or you dont the gradations in symptoms arent really applicable here
Actually 'continuum' is a term used in the description and catagorization of neurological and psychological diseases, because no two people are going to be effected exactly the same.
If you care too know, the one of the first times I ever came across the damn word was actually in relation to tourettes, right after my brother was diagnosed my mum had us read some stuff on it. Thats why it came to mind there, although I still find it more complex than was needed to make a very simple to grasp point...
unless you mean to say that any engagement with any foreigners completely rules out isolationist tendencies in which case isolationism is useless as a concept
I mean to say that sure, there was more we could have done, but there was a hell of a lot less that we could have. In terms of volume there was more then than at any point prior to it in out history.

so i guess we need to invent a new term for declining to engage in alliances and we'll use that one
Anti-Euroventinism?

[Not_bajs]

If i would post my opinion in this subject i would get hated and shi so i wont.

[Reaganista]

They are all examples of how just because something isn't taken to the extreme, it doesn't mean that it isn't there. What did you get on your SAT verbal?

750 but who the hell cares that's ancient history

Actually 'continuum' is a term used in the description and catagorization of neurological and psychological diseases, because no two people are going to be effected exactly the same.
If you care too know, the one of the first times I ever came across the damn word was actually in relation to tourettes, right after my brother was diagnosed my mum had us read some stuff on it. Thats why it came to mind there, although I still find it more complex than was needed to make a very simple to grasp point...
um i want you to understand a word not tell me your life story


I mean to say that sure, there was more we could have done, but there was a hell of a lot less that we could have. In terms of volume there was more then than at any point prior to it in out history.

except of course for the era immediately prior to it
and other eras if you're counting native wars like you wanted to
Anti-Euroventinism?
no ill stick with isolationism

[Der Übermensch]

um i want you to understand a word not tell me your life story
And as I was pointing out, using a story to convey the point, I not only understand the word, but was using it in a perfectly acceptable context.

except of course for the era immediately prior to it
and other eras if you're counting native wars like you wanted to
You mean there was more interventionism in the decades before the war with Spain then after? While I can't off hand make a direct comparison, I know there were a fair number, but they hardly matched in intensity. Spain is generally seen as the staring point of imperialesque ambitions though.
As for the Indian Wars, I thought we weren't counting them, but if we are, then are you conceding the earlier part of the discussion?

no ill stick with isolationism
Well, you certainly have an interesting definition then. Very Eurocentric...
But eh, I guess killing hispanics doesn't count, right?

[Reaganista]

And as I was pointing out, using a story to convey the point, I not only understand the word, but was using it in a perfectly acceptable context.

you mean a medical context that has nothing to do with the topic at hand

You mean there was more interventionism in the decades before the war with Spain then after?
spain was neutral the war was with germany, austria-hungary and the ottoman sultanate
jeez you should know that man

As for the Indian Wars, I thought we weren't counting them, but if we are, then are you conceding the earlier part of the discussion?

no killing 'uncivilized' people on your frontiers has never been foreign policy, seeing as the US laid claim to the territory they were inhabiting

ell, you certainly have an interesting definition then. Very Eurocentric...
But eh, I guess killing hispanics doesn't count, right?
hey continuum

[Der Übermensch]

you mean a medical context that has nothing to do with the topic at hand
Obviously it was a medical... I was making a ****ing analogy. It wouldn't have been a very good analogy if I used another situation of international relations...


spain was neutral the war was with germany, austria-hungary and the ottoman sultanate
jeez you should know that man
And you obviously knew I was talking about the Spanish-American War.


no killing 'uncivilized' people on your frontiers has never been foreign policy, seeing as the US laid claim to the territory they were inhabiting
Germany also laid claim to Poland, but we didn't consider that an internal dispute. Poland just had the good fortune to have international recognition.

[Reaganista]

Obviously it was a medical... I was making a ****ing analogy. It wouldn't have been a very good analogy if I used another situation of international relations...

it wasnt a good analogy anyway


And you obviously knew I was talking about the Spanish-American War.

i know you keep trying to draw a straw man by manipulating my timeline
and you knew i was refering to the pre WWI era when i said the previous era had more military activity


Germany also laid claim to Poland, but we didn't consider that an internal dispute. Poland just had the good fortune to have international recognition.
poland wasn't 'uncivilized' it's completely different

[Der Übermensch]

it wasnt a good analogy anyway [quote]
I beg to differ, but also I have a suspicion that anything that proves a point counter to what you think wouldn't be a "good analogy".


[quote]i know you keep trying to draw a straw man by manipulating my timeline
and you knew i was refering to the pre WWI era when i said the previous era had more military activity
It more has to do with the point I have been making. Following the Spanish American War, we had a certain unwillingness to get involved in european affairs, as you yourself have been continually pointing out, balanced out by an extreme willingness to be involved in colonial style conquests The Great War was an anomally of the period, with the nation only getting drawn in during the later half, after having been provoked to it. During the period between 1900 (or I guess 1898 if you want to be exact) and 1935, the United States entertained what some would even call imperial ambitions, and extended its reach all throughout the Central and Southern Americas as well as into the Pacific and Asia.
Thats not to say that we had neglected to do so prior to the war with Spain (there is a very long list), but we had never embarked on such endevours to the same degree before.


poland wasn't 'uncivilized' it's completely different
Well, we could turn this into an argument about what exactly contitutes civilized (The Cherokee had a written language and even published a newspaper), but I don't see that we are acutally differing on the application here... as I said, the Indian nations were rather unfortunatly situated.

[Reaganista]

[QUOTE=Reaganista;14778959]it wasnt a good analogy anyway [quote]
I beg to differ, but also I have a suspicion that anything that proves a point counter to what you think wouldn't be a "good analogy".

you're good at bad analogies if that makes you feel better


It more has to do with the point I have been making. Following the Spanish American War, we had a certain unwillingness to get involved in european affairs, as you yourself have been continually pointing out, balanced out by an extreme willingness to be involved in colonial style conquests The Great War was an anomally of the period, with the nation only getting drawn in during the later half, after having been provoked to it. During the period between 1900 (or I guess 1898 if you want to be exact) and 1935, the United States entertained what some would even call imperial ambitions, and extended its reach all throughout the Central and Southern Americas as well as into the Pacific and Asia.

the years are off
and the rigid desire to avoid interference with any european interests precludes most of the world
thus making them isolationist on balance irrespective of very minor inolvements in south america

Thats not to say that we had neglected to do so prior to the war with Spain (there is a very long list), but we had never embarked on such endevours to the same degree before.

did you just put a u in endeavor wtf kind of euro are you


Well, we could turn this into an argument about what exactly contitutes civilized (The Cherokee had a written language and even published a newspaper), but I don't see that we are acutally differing on the application here... as I said, the Indian nations were rather unfortunatly situated.
k

[Der Übermensch]

the years are off
and the rigid desire to avoid interference with any european interests precludes most of the world
thus making them isolationist on balance irrespective of very minor inolvements in south america
It only precludes Europe, Africa and the Near East; Leaving the Americas and Far East well open.
Learn your damn history... 1898=War with spain; 1935=First year in which we officially observed the good neighbor policy.

did you just put a u in endeavor wtf kind of euro are you


If the best retort that you can make is that I used european spelling for a word, I'm just going to declare victory here. I probably should have awhile ago, as you stopped making any actual argument many posts back...

Colour...
Favourite...
Centre...

[pedro durruti]

Do professors mark your spelling mistakes?

[Iskandar]

Do professors mark your spelling mistakes?They're just alternate spellings, but I'd play it safe and avoid any un-American orthography.

[pedro durruti]

I like the way they spell their words, but far be it from me to do anything un-American.

[italic zero]

manoeuvre
paedophile

these are the best ones

[Jharaski]

The colour of my armour is my absolute favourite.

[Iskandar]

manoeuvre
paedophile

these are the best onesTechnically, it's a ligature: pædophile.

[Reaganista]

It only precludes Europe, Africa and the Near East; Leaving the Americas and Far East well open.
Learn your damn history... 1898=War with spain; 1935=First year in which we officially observed the good neighbor policy.

ive already discredited that go back plz


If the best retort that you can make is that I used european spelling for a word, I'm just going to declare victory here. I probably should have awhile ago, as you stopped making any actual argument many posts back...

Colour...
Favourite...
Centre...
you didnt make any actually meaningful points in that section

and you've refused to use the commonly accepted definition of isolationism so none of your arguments really have any validity

oh well

[Der Übermensch]

ive already discredited that go back plz
Calling me a cunt isn't the same as actually proving something to be wrong.

you didnt make any actually meaningful points in that section
I'm sorry, I didn't notice an argument within all those ad hominums. Seriously tway, you used to be a good poster, now you're a worse troll than fenwood ever was... what happened?
and you've refused to use the commonly accepted definition of isolationism so none of your arguments really have any validity
Isolationism = The policy of not participating in international affairs, and abstaining from involvement in the internal affairs of other nations.

Invading other nations (Even if they aren't in Europe) = Involvement in the affairs of other nations....

Landing troops in China, Nicaragua, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Russia etc... = Invading Other Nations.

[Reaganista]

Calling me a cunt isn't the same as actually proving something to be wrong.

you started with the insults there big shot


I'm sorry, I didn't notice an argument within all those ad hominums. Seriously tway, you used to be a good poster, now you're a worse troll than fenwood ever was... what happened?

hey fenwood was hilarious

Isolationism = The policy of not participating in international affairs, and abstaining from involvement in the internal affairs of other nations.

actually it's the policy of not engaging in alliances

Invading other nations (Even if they aren't in Europe) = Involvement in the affairs of other nations....

Landing troops in China, Nicaragua, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Russia etc... = Invading Other Nations.
not really
but all of those were carried out for isolationist reasons
except russia i guess but who the **** cares the monroe doctrine itself is enough to demonstrate the massive and overwhelming isolationist tendencies of the time

[italic zero]

Technically, it's a ligature: pædophile.
also manœuvre but those are pretty much archaic at this point

[Der Übermensch]

you started with the insults there big shot
Did I imply that? I believe cunt had been a reponse to a post in which I called you an idiot. I was more pointing out that you subsitute ad hominums for any form of actual argument. I never used them as my entire response to a post though, only as side commentary.


hey fenwood was hilarious
Doesn't mean he wasn't a troll.

actually it's the policy of not engaging in alliances
As well as being non-interventonist. (Avoid entangaling alliances and all wars not related to direct territorial self-defence. You have to observe both facets of it to be isolationist, and at best we only did one (Which hs been the whole point I have been making this entire time. You don't have to be a globe trotting world protector to still be an interventionist nation, it can be on a smaller scale.)

not really
but all of those were carried out for isolationist reasons
No, mostly they were carried out for the expansion of american buisness interests into foreign markets... Banana Republics, ya know?

except russia i guess but who the **** cares
The people who died there?

the monroe doctrine itself is enough to demonstrate the massive and overwhelming isolationist tendencies of the time
In relation to Europe/Europeanism, NOT the world as a whole.

[Gottlieb]

Firstoff, Id like to make it clear that I am an American, and one that is against the Iraqi war.

Secondly, I understand that there are people that are pointing out why the 9/11 attacks happened. That is, why our enemies thought it was right to attack us like they did. That is fine to discuss why they did it, there is nothing wrong with that.

BUT, when i have to argue with someone as to whether or not we deserved it, I think that really crosses the line. I don't think I can name one country that deserves to have 3,000 of its civilians killed in such a barbaric way, and I can't believe some people think that way.

Killing a group of innocent civilians anywhere for whatever reason is definitely done with evil intentions. But thats warfare now...

With America and its super dandy military, countries like in the middle east or Asia(or terrorist militant groups) have to come up with a new way to defeat its enemy, or not even defeat them but make a radical point to the world. Some people in America say americans deserved it(which is pathetic) but people won't say that when someone innocent and close to them has been killed over politics.

[Reaganista]

Did I imply that? I believe cunt had been a reponse to a post in which I called you an idiot. I was more pointing out that you subsitute ad hominums for any form of actual argument. I never used them as my entire response to a post though, only as side commentary.

don't be a cunt


Doesn't mean he wasn't a troll.

he was a god among trolls


As well as being non-interventonist. (Avoid entangaling alliances and all wars not related to direct territorial self-defence. You have to observe both facets of it to be isolationist, and at best we only did one (Which hs been the whole point I have been making this entire time. You don't have to be a globe trotting world protector to still be an interventionist nation, it can be on a smaller scale.)

yeah a really small scale
like a scale that is outweighed by the large scale isolationist tendencies
now you're gettin it


o, mostly they were carried out for the expansion of american buisness interests into foreign markets... Banana Republics, ya know?

In relation to Europe/Europeanism, NOT the world as a whole.
no to everyone

The people who died there?

and who cares about them