After ten years of constant skirmishes and fighting a guerilla war with Al-Queda and The Taliban. Should we as a nation fall back and become a defensive power again. Just like we were before World War One and World War Two. Our economy can no longer handle the rising costs of maintaning a very long and progressive war against an enemy who is so good at blending in, we have a difficult time even seeing them?
My question to lead this debate is that is it possible that the United States of America can go back to being isolationist after decades of having been deemed "The Worlds Police Force"? If we can, how would that look like? If we cannot? Why and what would be the reasoning behind it.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Uh, when exactly has the US been an isolationist country?

Jihadin wrote:

After ten years of constant skirmishes and fighting a guerilla war with Al-Queda and The Taliban. Should we as a nation fall back and become a defensive power again. Just like we were before World War One and World War Two. Our economy can no longer handle the rising costs of maintaning a very long and progressive war against an enemy who is so good at blending in, we have a difficult time even seeing them?
My question to lead this debate is that is it possible that the United States of America can go back to being isolationist after decades of having been deemed "The Worlds Police Force"? If we can, how would that look like? If we cannot? Why and what would be the reasoning behind it.

I perfer we go back to isolationism. Leave the affairs of the middle east alone. Let someone else handle the Straight of Homuz. Not concern ourselves with South China Sea. Stop importing oil from the middle east and exploit our oil resource here in the states. Seal our borders just to get a handle on illegal immigration. Pull the last of our troops from Germany and Italy and reassign them back home. Along with 5th Fleet. Those troops station in South Korea I'm 50/50 on since technically we're still at war with the North.

No longer be the major supporter of any UN actions. Withdaw from Bosnia and Kosovo missions. Turn a blind eye if Isreal goes off the hook on some middle east country. Taiwan I believe we're to commited to. Withdraw/limit/do away with foriegn aid to certain countries. Turn Nato over to a prominent european nation to lead. (UK or Germany)

Basically limit US involvement around the world to "nil" impact and focus on rebuilding the US from within. Rebuilding that covers a wide range within the US. With the US military primary focus on defense of the US of A

Pre-WWII the US was not isolationist; and my question was mostly rhetorical. In addition to the Barbary States, the US Navy was also a big fan of annoying the Hell out of Japan and flexing imperialistic muscles on the Philippines, and getting all up in China's problems, too, and even taking police actions against Nicaraugua.

Jihadin wrote:

Pre-WWII the US was not isolationist; and my question was mostly rhetorical. In addition to the Barbary States, the US Navy was also a big fan of annoying the Hell out of Japan and flexing imperialistic muscles on the Philippines, and getting all up in China's problems, too, and even taking police actions against Nicaraugua.

I'm talking about now

but
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html

ShumaGorath wrote:We don't need to be isolationist, we just need to not be utterly idiotic in how we prosecute wars. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were bushes pet projects and were politicized and corrupt down to their core.

Just just need to stop doing gak like that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:

Pre-WWII the US was not isolationist; and my question was mostly rhetorical. In addition to the Barbary States, the US Navy was also a big fan of annoying the Hell out of Japan and flexing imperialistic muscles on the Philippines, and getting all up in China's problems, too, and even taking police actions against Nicaraugua.

I'm talking about now

but
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html

Yeah. Isolationist. That's why we have california. That's why we exterminated the native Americans. That's why we went to war with Spain. Clearly we were isolationist up until the second world war (not even the first). It's not like manifest destiny existed before that. Barf.

Jihadin wrote:

After ten years of constant skirmishes and fighting a guerilla war with Al-Queda and The Taliban. Should we as a nation fall back and become a defensive power again. Just like we were before World War One and World War Two. Our economy can no longer handle the rising costs of maintaning a very long and progressive war against an enemy who is so good at blending in, we have a difficult time even seeing them?
My question to lead this debate is that is it possible that the United States of America can go back to being isolationist after decades of having been deemed "The Worlds Police Force"? If we can, how would that look like? If we cannot? Why and what would be the reasoning behind it.

I perfer we go back to isolationism. Leave the affairs of the middle east alone. Let someone else handle the Straight of Homuz. Not concern ourselves with South China Sea. Stop importing oil from the middle east and exploit our oil resource here in the states. Seal our borders just to get a handle on illegal immigration. Pull the last of our troops from Germany and Italy and reassign them back home. Along with 5th Fleet. Those troops station in South Korea I'm 50/50 on since technically we're still at war with the North.

No longer be the major supporter of any UN actions. Withdaw from Bosnia and Kosovo missions. Turn a blind eye if Isreal goes off the hook on some middle east country. Taiwan I believe we're to commited to. Withdraw/limit/do away with foriegn aid to certain countries. Turn Nato over to a prominent european nation to lead. (UK or Germany)

Basically limit US involvement around the world to "nil" impact and focus on rebuilding the US from within. Rebuilding that covers a wide range within the US. With the US military primary focus on defense of the US of A

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I'm a fan. Keep the Airforce and Navy shored up, leave the Marines alone for the most part and the SOCOM community and pare down the bulk Army significantly, leaving a core of battle experienced and hardened regiments. You can always train up footsloggers and cannon cockers fast quick and in a hurry, laying the keels for new ships and producing new squadrons of fighters takes time. Expeditionary combat forces and SF teams are blue/green and black respectively and quite the tool for crisis management, brushfires that need a quick stomp and disaster relief.

Pull all US military forces out of europe leaving two major transit hubs. Say Rammstein and whichever base we fly out of in the UK (spacing at the moment)

Honor traditional alliances (Taiwan, South Korea, etc) maintain US Naval presence and "freedom of the seas" but otherwise tell everyone to feth off and solve their own problems is they didn't just get rolled by a tsunami or something.

We stop playing world police, still maintain force projection and humanitarian and aid and can drop our military budget.

whembly wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I'm a fan. Keep the Airforce and Navy shored up, leave the Marines alone for the most part and the SOCOM community and pare down the bulk Army significantly, leaving a core of battle experienced and hardened regiments. You can always train up footsloggers and cannon cockers fast quick and in a hurry, laying the keels for new ships and producing new squadrons of fighters takes time. Expeditionary combat forces and SF teams are blue/green and black respectively and quite the tool for crisis management, brushfires that need a quick stomp and disaster relief.

Pull all US military forces out of europe leaving two major transit hubs. Say Rammstein and whichever base we fly out of in the UK (spacing at the moment)

Honor traditional alliances (Taiwan, South Korea, etc) maintain US Naval presence and "freedom of the seas" but otherwise tell everyone to feth off and solve their own problems is they didn't just get rolled by a tsunami or something.

We stop playing world police, still maintain force projection and humanitarian and aid and can drop our military budget.

IN my Administration, you'd be the head DoD.

Right on!

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I'm a fan. Keep the Airforce and Navy shored up, leave the Marines alone for the most part and the SOCOM community and pare down the bulk Army significantly, leaving a core of battle experienced and hardened regiments. You can always train up footsloggers and cannon cockers fast quick and in a hurry, laying the keels for new ships and producing new squadrons of fighters takes time. Expeditionary combat forces and SF teams are blue/green and black respectively and quite the tool for crisis management, brushfires that need a quick stomp and disaster relief.

Pull all US military forces out of europe leaving two major transit hubs. Say Rammstein and whichever base we fly out of in the UK (spacing at the moment)

Honor traditional alliances (Taiwan, South Korea, etc) maintain US Naval presence and "freedom of the seas" but otherwise tell everyone to feth off and solve their own problems is they didn't just get rolled by a tsunami or something.

We stop playing world police, still maintain force projection and humanitarian and aid and can drop our military budget.

Can you get out of Japan? Can we finally amend Article Nine without your honor-less scumbags in the CIA breathing down our necks? If you want to go isolationist, we're going to need Carriers.

Tadashi wrote:
Can you get out of Japan? Can we finally amend Article Nine without your honor-less scumbags in the CIA breathing down our necks? If you want to go isolationist, we're going to need Carriers.

Jihadin wrote:

Can you get out of Japan? Can we finally amend Article Nine without your honor-less scumbags in the CIA breathing down our necks? If you want to go isolationist, we're going to need Carriers.

I thought you were in the Phillapines?

AustonT wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
Can you get out of Japan? Can we finally amend Article Nine without your honor-less scumbags in the CIA breathing down our necks? If you want to go isolationist, we're going to need Carriers.

Bwahahaha! Are you fething kidding? The US wants Japan to amend Article 9 so that they can count on Japan's full fledged support for the war on terror abroad and, of course, the inevitable war with China.
You already have your midget carriers, in sum: what exactly are you on about?

GalacticDefender wrote:Mine the moon for Helium 3 I say. Tis the solution to all of our energy problems.

Jihadin wrote: I perfer we go back to isolationism.

Frazzled wrote:DAMN RIGHT

Here's a short list of engagements, just off the top of my head we've been involved in since FDR pushed us into WWII with Lendlease and the embargo on Japan.
WWII (duh) still there
Korean War still there
Vietnam War Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand (they want us back now)
Lebanon ( a lot of body bags from there)
Desert War One (still there)
Desert War Two (still there)
Afghanistan (still there)
Cuba
Cold War (still there)
Somalia
Haiti

Please name five countries off the top of your head where US troops haven't been or currently have troops at in the last five years?
And what has it gotten us besides a butcher's bill of body bags? is the world a better place? Are we in a better place? Does the world love us?
Get out. Stay out. Be neutral like Switzerland. Sell what you can, buy what you need, but unless we are directly threatened (in which case introduce them to the wonderful world of the receiving end of fusion weaponry) STAY OUT.

juraigamer wrote:We could if we put enough nuclear power plants and electric cars into the country, until them we fight while they still bleed oil.

Jihadin wrote:

Uh, when exactly has the US been an isolationist country?

Pre WWII

If the mission of the military was to be changed the "military industrial complex" has no say in the matter. They would go on producing in "limited" quantities cutting edge weapon tech Remember this would probaly take out a huge chunk of defense spending that everyone clamoring about to do

Jihadin wrote:LOL it might happen when the automatic defense cuts go into play.

Deathklaat wrote:
i really think we should become a BIT like Germany before WWII, you know that nationalism. Pride in America, buy American goods, make American jobs, stop making America the laughing stock of Earth.

Tadashi wrote:More US politicians should be like you...you actually understand the phrase "Leave well enough alone."

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Frazz you forgot we're all up in Africa too.

Frazzled wrote:Do like Europe and Japan, and how we do now. Buy the oil. Big deal. We can stay involved in international affairs, just not militarily. be like Europe, China, and South America. What a concept.

labmouse42 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Do like Europe and Japan, and how we do now. Buy the oil. Big deal. We can stay involved in international affairs, just not militarily. be like Europe, China, and South America. What a concept.

As a side note : We buy the majority of our oil from Canada.

We have also vastly increased our own oil production over the past few years and are now exporting oil.
Yes, you may think that odd, but we are contractually obliged to buy oil from Canada over a period of years at a set price. Until that contract expires, we have an excess of oil, hence we are exporting some to other countries.

Deathklaat wrote:i really think the US needs to stop playing World Police because its a waste of our troops lives.

Deathklaat wrote:we could use our troops at home for some good like the war on drugs, weapons and human trafficing or.. illegal immigrants.

Deathklaat wrote:Pride in America, buy American goods, make American jobs, stop making America the laughing stock of Earth.

Tadashi wrote:Then what's with all the trouble in the Middle East? Apart from terrorists and oil there's nothing there for you.

Frazzled wrote:
Please name five countries off the top of your head where US troops haven't been or currently have troops at in the last five years?

Frazzled wrote:
Are we in a better place?

Frazzled wrote:We care because oil is a fungible commodity. A supply disruption in one locale quickly affects the prices worlwide.

Frazzled wrote:
Indeed before WWII we were quite isolationist. We also didn't have troops across the globe.

Jihadin wrote:
No longer be the major supporter of any UN actions.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Please name five countries off the top of your head where US troops haven't been or currently have troops at in the last five years?

In the last five years? That's easy. Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, Venezuela. There are quite a few more though, especially in Africa and South America.

Frazzled wrote:
Are we in a better place?

Yes.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Please name five countries off the top of your head where US troops haven't been or currently have troops at in the last five years?

In the last five years? That's easy. Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, Venezuela. There are quite a few more though, especially in Africa and South America.

Frazzled wrote:
We had training exercises with Russia and China at various times.

Frazzled wrote:
How are we better than before WWII?

Frazzled wrote:Nixon put the US on its highest state of nuclear alert since WWII in reponse to the USSR's threat to get involved in one of the Israel vs. the Middle East wars (I think its the 1973 war).

Deathklaat wrote:Frazzled is my hero.
i really think the US needs to stop playing World Police because its a waste of our troops lives.
i really think unless its something major we should stay the f out of everyone's problems. they could really fix the debt issues if they stopped handing out tax payer's money to everyone with a problem.
we could use our troops at home for some good like the war on drugs, weapons and human trafficing or.. illegal immigrants.
they could build Deathklaat's Great Wall of Mexico and do much more good with no loss of life.

its like all these lets send aid to X country thats starving, we have enough people in our own country that are homeless and starving we should care for them first.
i really think we should become a BIT like Germany before WWII, you know that nationalism. Pride in America, buy American goods, make American jobs, stop making America the laughing stock of Earth.

dogma wrote:

We are, unequivocally, the greatest military power in the world. We have the ability to project force across the globe in order to insure our strategic interests (granted, this can be misused ala Iraq). And, if we're speaking more generally, median and mean real income have nearly doubled. Granted, this isn't solely the result of our military physical plant, but you also can't ignore the role it has played in securing our economic prosperity.

By virtually every measure, from relative international power to quality of life, the US is better off now than it was before WWII.

Tadashi wrote:
There are around fifty thousand (AFAIK) American troops along the Korean DMZ, not counting vehicles and aircraft, not to mention around a million land mines, which are supposed to be illegal but are far too many (or useful) to remove.

Tadashi wrote:
And there was that drone that got hacked and was made to land in Iran after being caught 'trespassing' or to be more blunt, spying.

Tadashi wrote:
Russia, well, America and NATO's efforts to extend their influence into Eastern Europe, traditionally a Russian sphere-of-influence, could count, and technically Taiwan is a renegade Chinese province (as far as the PRC is concerned).

Tadashi wrote:
TBH, if you can have allies, why can't Russia or China have any of their own?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Deathklaat wrote:Frazzled is my hero.
i really think the US needs to stop playing World Police because its a waste of our troops lives.
i really think unless its something major we should stay the f out of everyone's problems. they could really fix the debt issues if they stopped handing out tax payer's money to everyone with a problem.
we could use our troops at home for some good like the war on drugs, weapons and human trafficing or.. illegal immigrants.
they could build Deathklaat's Great Wall of Mexico and do much more good with no loss of life.

its like all these lets send aid to X country thats starving, we have enough people in our own country that are homeless and starving we should care for them first.
i really think we should become a BIT like Germany before WWII, you know that nationalism. Pride in America, buy American goods, make American jobs, stop making America the laughing stock of Earth.

Frazzled wanted to nuke the middleast into oblivion in 2010. You should pick your heroes better.

Tadashi wrote:
Look again: your government has the biggest debt in the world, social issues are rife, your economy is faltering, and your military is being bled white by 'police actions'.

dogma wrote:

Why should we allow them to? I mean, Russia is virtually a non-issue, their only real sources of political capital are their nuclear stockpile, and role in supplying natural gas to Europe. China is a greater concern, but I would hardly count Libya as a great ally of theirs, when they espouse a doctrine of nonintervention it tends to be grounded more in their standard line regarding domestic human rights abuses.

dogma wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
Look again: your government has the biggest debt in the world, social issues are rife, your economy is faltering, and your military is being bled white by 'police actions'.

Do you not know what the US was like before WWII?

Racial segregation was the norm in many parts of the country, as was overtly violent racism. The economy was in abysmal shape, being at the tail end of the Great Depression. There was no significant standing army, with our military power largely being a matter of manufacturing potential.

About the only thing you could claim as a favorable comparison would be our pre-WWII trade balance.

A training exercise is not the same thing as a permanent deployment. Even if we eliminated all components of our overseas physical plant, we would still have training exercises with foreign nations.

We are, unequivocally, the greatest military power in the world.

We have the ability to project force across the

And, if we're speaking more generally, median and mean real income have nearly doubled.

Granted, this isn't solely the result of our military physical plant, but you also can't ignore the role it has played in securing our economic prosperity.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Deathklaat wrote:Frazzled is my hero.
i really think the US needs to stop playing World Police because its a waste of our troops lives.
i really think unless its something major we should stay the f out of everyone's problems. they could really fix the debt issues if they stopped handing out tax payer's money to everyone with a problem.
we could use our troops at home for some good like the war on drugs, weapons and human trafficing or.. illegal immigrants.
they could build Deathklaat's Great Wall of Mexico and do much more good with no loss of life.

its like all these lets send aid to X country thats starving, we have enough people in our own country that are homeless and starving we should care for them first.
i really think we should become a BIT like Germany before WWII, you know that nationalism. Pride in America, buy American goods, make American jobs, stop making America the laughing stock of Earth.

Frazzled wanted to nuke the middleast into oblivion in 2010. You should pick your heroes better.

Tadashi wrote:
I hardly think 6000 or more nukes a non-issue, or for that matter hidden stockpiles of heavy armor and other equipment, seeing as Russians don't exactly think badly of attrition/overwhelming enemies with numbers.

Tadashi wrote:
If you don't allow them to, then don't expect them to let you encroach on their spheres of influence either.

Frazzled wrote:
Sure you can. Explain to me how the Korean War helped US business? How did the Vietnam war help the economy? oh lookey we had a nice recession. Please prove to me your tenuous connection that the Iraq War helped the US economy?

dogma wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
I hardly think 6000 or more nukes a non-issue, or for that matter hidden stockpiles of heavy armor and other equipment, seeing as Russians don't exactly think badly of attrition/overwhelming enemies with numbers.

Note how I said "...their only real sources of political capital are their nuclear stockpile..."? But even then, nuclear weapons are relatively minor concern when they in the possession of established states as they aren't relevant in any practically feasible conflict.

Do you not know what the US was like before WWII?

***Much like now. Lots of good and lots of bad.

Racial segregation was the norm in many parts of the country, as was overtly violent racism.

*And our wars in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea, Afghanistan. Iraq, Kuwait, and actions in Somalia helped that not a whit.

The economy was in abysmal shape, being at the tail end of the Great Depression.

This sounds vaguely familiar…

There was no significant standing army, with our military power largely being a matter of manufacturing potential.

If you have no enemies save the great evil that is Vancouver and are protected a strong Navy you didn’t need one. The UK didn’t have one either.

About the only thing you could claim as a favorable comparison would be our pre-WWII trade balance.

You mean back when we could make more than the rest of the world combined, kind of like China now?
Also, again our wars in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea, Afghanistan. Iraq, Kuwait, and actions in Somalia helped that not a whit.

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 13:51:42

Post by: Melissia

What level of isolationism are we talking about here?

Purely military? That's a bit extreme, but understandable. But in the end, impossible-- we're gonna need to patrol trade routes for example, so our navy will not be able to be isolationist-- it'll have to kill some pirates and all that. But if you mean no more direct, troops on the ground interventions? I can probably get behind that I suppose.



Trade isolationism? That would be unbelievably stupid.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 13:52:24

Post by: Frazzled

Remember boys, thanks to the Cold War, we're one "oops" away from nuclear armageddon. The only difference is that now we have nukes from China and North Korea pointed at us (ok trying to point at us NK still sucks).

When NY is vapororized by some smuggled out old USSR nuke by terrorists or Irantell me about how all that internationalism is good for the US.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 13:53:39

Post by: Tadashi

Frazzled wrote:Remember boys, thanks to the Cold War, we're one "oops" away from nuclear armageddon. The only difference is that now we have nukes from China and North Korea pointed at us (ok trying to point at us NK still sucks).

The NK nukes aren't aimed at your homeland...they're aimed at my homeland, or rather, your bases there. If you want the Empire as an ally, then do something about it, or since you can't, give us an incentive to do something about it and amend Article Nine.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 13:53:48

Post by: Frazzled

Melissia wrote:What level of isolationism are we talking about here?

Purely military? That's a bit extreme, but understandable. But in the end, impossible-- we're gonna need to patrol trade routes for example, so our navy will not be able to be isolationist-- it'll have to kill some pirates and all that. But if you mean no more direct, troops on the ground interventions? I can probably get behind that I suppose.

***What you just said actually. The same position as China, most of Latin America, and and Europe. trade and plitical isolationism - no no not at all.

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 13:54:56

Post by: Melissia

More likely than not, because of our good relations with other nations-- something isolationism does not bring-- they'd be caught before they ever got to the US as our intelligence agencies work with theirs to prevent that sort of scenario.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 13:55:17

Post by: Frazzled

Tadashi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Remember boys, thanks to the Cold War, we're one "oops" away from nuclear armageddon. The only difference is that now we have nukes from China and North Korea pointed at us (ok trying to point at us NK still sucks).

The NK nukes aren't aimed at your homeland...they're aimed at my homeland, or rather, your bases there.

See yet another reason. We beat hell out of Japan for what they did. Time to has a California roll, grab some Katana and Ninja crotch rockets and a nice Yamaha road cruiser and call it a day.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 13:56:36

Post by: Tadashi

Melissia wrote:More likely than not, because of our good relations with other nations-- something isolationism does not bring-- they'd be caught before they ever got to the US as our intelligence agencies work with theirs to prevent that sort of scenario.

Like 9/11...or Pearl Harbor? Your people knew of the latter, but your President let it happen as an excuse to have Congress declare war.

Frazzled wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Remember boys, thanks to the Cold War, we're one "oops" away from nuclear armageddon. The only difference is that now we have nukes from China and North Korea pointed at us (ok trying to point at us NK still sucks).

The NK nukes aren't aimed at your homeland...they're aimed at my homeland, or rather, your bases there.

See yet another reason. We beat hell out of Japan for what they did. Time to has a California roll, grab some Katana and Ninja crotch rockets and a nice Yamaha road cruiser and call it a day.

I other words, let the Japanese fry...great, that'll keep the folks back home on your side.

Reply by: CT GAMER - click to view full reply 

14152

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 13:59:52

Post by: CT GAMER

Amaya wrote:Better yet, go to a policy of any terrorist activity against America will lead to us nuking you until any survivors grow additional limbs and extra eyes.

Show me the country of Al Queda on a map...

You do understand that terrorist groups often are NOT states unto themselves and thus you can't target and "nuke them"?


And yes I understand that certain states are sympathetic to and sponsor terrorists, but that isnt the same as what you describe.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:05:52

Post by: Frazzled

CT GAMER wrote:

Amaya wrote:Better yet, go to a policy of any terrorist activity against America will lead to us nuking you until any survivors grow additional limbs and extra eyes.

Show me the country of Al Queda on a map...

You do understand that terrorist groups often are NOT states unto themselves and thus you can't target and "nuke them"?


And yes I understand that certain states are sympathetic to and sponsor terrorists, but that isnt the same as what you describe.

Northern Mali, Yemen. Northern Afghanistan, Western Pakistan.

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:06:06

Post by: Melissia

Tadashi wrote:

Melissia wrote:More likely than not, because of our good relations with other nations-- something isolationism does not bring-- they'd be caught before they ever got to the US as our intelligence agencies work with theirs to prevent that sort of scenario.

Like 9/11...or Pearl Harbor?

There have been countless times that terrorists are caught before they manage to do anything. Especially after 9/11, which prevented us from slipping back in to isolationist.

Also, Pearl Harbor wasn't a terrorist attack. It was a military attack, aimed at killing off as much of our navy at Pearl Harbor as possible.. Claiming that it is on the same level as 9/11 is stupid, and also stupid. But even then, we were heavily isolationist after WWI.

As for your claim that the president knew about the attack before it was going to happen, lol, no.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:07:37

Post by: Frazzled

Tadashi wrote:

Melissia wrote:More likely than not, because of our good relations with other nations-- something isolationism does not bring-- they'd be caught before they ever got to the US as our intelligence agencies work with theirs to prevent that sort of scenario.

Like 9/11...or Pearl Harbor? Your people knew of the latter, but your President let it happen as an excuse to have Congress declare war.

Frazzled wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Remember boys, thanks to the Cold War, we're one "oops" away from nuclear armageddon. The only difference is that now we have nukes from China and North Korea pointed at us (ok trying to point at us NK still sucks).

The NK nukes aren't aimed at your homeland...they're aimed at my homeland, or rather, your bases there.

See yet another reason. We beat hell out of Japan for what they did. Time to has a California roll, grab some Katana and Ninja crotch rockets and a nice Yamaha road cruiser and call it a day.

I other words, let the Japanese fry...great, that'll keep the folks back home on your side.

If we weren't there Japan would not be threatened (unless of course, like me, their hatered of YuGiYo is worth blowing up the world over DIE PIKACHU DIE DIE!).

Reply by: dogma - click to view full reply 

5534

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:08:32

Post by: dogma

Frazzled wrote:
You’re right. Of course that wasn’t my statement either, so you’re er wrong to.

Right, my mistake, I was assuming that you weren't arguing from an absurd position.

Frazzled wrote:
And? Has it made the US more safe? Has it made US citizens abroad more safe?

Its definitely made the US safer, as without our many foreign deployments (largely spurred by the Cold War) we wouldn't be sitting on nearly as large an advantage in military technology, because we would never have needed one.

Citizens abroad aren't our problem, the US government has no duty to protect people beyond its jurisdiction. That they still attempt to is a matter of political kindness. Though the the military and economic position of the US certainly means they have an enhanced ability to do so.

Frazzled wrote:
I’d put good money that our GDP growth rates after 1955 (once Europe started to recover) are lower than the 19th century.

They were, but the population was also growing much faster. The annualized growth rate in real per capita GDP from 1850 to 1950 was about 1.6%, while from 1951-2010 it was about 2.1%.

Frazzled wrote:
Sure you can. Explain to me how the Korean War helped US business? How did the Vietnam war help the economy? oh lookey we had a nice recession. Please prove to me your tenuous connection that the Iraq War helped the US economy?

I'm not talking about wars, Fraz. I'm talking about the actual military physical plant. War almost never helps an economy, but solid relations with states in which our physical plant is present generally do, especially since the presence of US bases tends to have a way of ensuring the existence of a stable, US sympathetic, government.

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:09:01

Post by: ShumaGorath

No just portions of Afghanistan and in 2002*. Please get your facts together. As the immortal bard once said: "put down the bong pipe and keep up!"

I wasn't even on this forum in 2002 and you've advocated for it repeatedly. So spare the ivory tower. It's on record and it's part of why you're not a mod.

Reply by: KalashnikovMarine - click to view full reply 

61627

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:09:38

Post by: KalashnikovMarine

No I'm pretty sure tension between any part of Korea and Japan have been going on since before the US existed as a nation, I'm sure best korea would be trying to aim their ineffective, malfunctioning and easy to shoot down missiles at Japan still.

Reply by: AustonT - click to view full reply 

29110

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:09:59

Post by: AustonT

Tadashi wrote:Look again: your government has the biggest debt in the world, social issues are rife, your economy is faltering, and your military is being bled white by 'police actions'.

Wait what? Japan has the worse, I say again the worse debt to GDP ratio IN THE WORLD. And you are agitating for them to spend more money on thier military whilst saying we can't afford ours. Come back to reality.

Tadashi wrote:There are around fifty thousand (AFAIK) American troops along the Korean DMZ, not counting vehicles and aircraft, not to mention around a million land mines, which are supposed to be illegal but are far too many (or useful) to remove.

Again, back over here in the real world the DMZ is not a part of North Korea and land mines aren't illegal. Neither North Korea or the US are signatories to the Ottowa Treaty.
Shall I go on?
Almost everything you've said ITT is nonsensical at best.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:10:01

Post by: Tadashi

Melissia wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Melissia wrote:More likely than not, because of our good relations with other nations-- something isolationism does not bring-- they'd be caught before they ever got to the US as our intelligence agencies work with theirs to prevent that sort of scenario.

Like 9/11...or Pearl Harbor?

There have been countless times that terrorists are caught before they manage to do anything. Especially after 9/11, which prevented us from slipping back in to isolationist.

Good for you...now what? The more you intervene in the Middle East, the more people you incarcerate in Guantanamo, the more you create support for those cowardly scum known as terrorists.

Reply by: labmouse42 - click to view full reply 

1943

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:11:14

Post by: labmouse42

Frazzled wrote:Northern Mali, Yemen. Northern Afghanistan, Western Pakistan.

Frazzled...the problem is that these countries are areas where terrorists can go and be trained.

How do we best handle it?
Remember, Pakistan is a nation with nuclear capabilities -- unwarranted attacks on their soil may have dire repercussions.

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:12:15

Post by: ShumaGorath

Tadashi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Remember boys, thanks to the Cold War, we're one "oops" away from nuclear armageddon. The only difference is that now we have nukes from China and North Korea pointed at us (ok trying to point at us NK still sucks).

The NK nukes aren't aimed at your homeland...they're aimed at my homeland, or rather, your bases there. If you want the Empire as an ally, then do something about it, or since you can't, give us an incentive to do something about it and amend Article Nine.

Insofar as they're aimed anywhere they'd be aimed at your population centers. North Koreas nukes aren't being built with the purpose of disabling American military forces, they're being built with the purpose of evaporating south korea and its population (and ensuring no one can militarily interrupt their sovereignty). If they launched one at you at all it'd just hit the closest densely populated area.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:12:29

Post by: Tadashi

AustonT wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Look again: your government has the biggest debt in the world, social issues are rife, your economy is faltering, and your military is being bled white by 'police actions'.

Wait what? Japan has the worse, I say again the worse debt to GDP ratio IN THE WORLD. And you are agitating for them to spend more money on thier military whilst saying we can't afford ours. Come back to reality.

Not really seeing as much of the government's debt is owned by Japanese companies...so the government owes money to its own citizens, which isn't really all that bad.

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:13:27

Post by: ShumaGorath

KalashnikovMarine wrote:No I'm pretty sure tension between any part of Korea and Japan have been going on since before the US existed as a nation, I'm sure best korea would be trying to aim their ineffective, malfunctioning and easy to shoot down missiles at Japan still.

Why does no one acknowledge that south korea is their primary target? They're still at war and they shoot at eachother weekly.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:13:42

Post by: Frazzled

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You’re right. Of course that wasn’t my statement either, so you’re er wrong to.

Right, my mistake, I was assuming that you weren't arguing from an absurd position.

An insult after such a fine conversation. I'll take that as your white flag of surrender. I hope you don't mind but its likely that TBone will try to shred the cloth. When I stop after our walk to get milk, he'll go from "oh I can't see and am older than dirt" to "ooh I think I'll shred this napkin I found into little bits CURSES you're back already?!?"

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:15:17

Post by: Tadashi

ShumaGorath wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Remember boys, thanks to the Cold War, we're one "oops" away from nuclear armageddon. The only difference is that now we have nukes from China and North Korea pointed at us (ok trying to point at us NK still sucks).

The NK nukes aren't aimed at your homeland...they're aimed at my homeland, or rather, your bases there. If you want the Empire as an ally, then do something about it, or since you can't, give us an incentive to do something about it and amend Article Nine.

Insofar as they're aimed anywhere they'd be aimed at your population centers. North Koreas nukes aren't being built with the purpose of disabling American military forces, they're being built with the purpose of evaporating south korea and its population (and ensuring no one can militarily interrupt their sovereignty). If they launched one at you at all it'd just hit the closest densely populated area.

Tokyo and Yokata Air Base...no enemy has ever landed or attacked Japan in force and not suffered retribution (the American Occupation was different, the Showa Emperor cooperated and so the Americans never really invaded) - if so much as a single NK missile hits Japan, American support or not, NK will cease to exist.

Reply by: KalashnikovMarine - click to view full reply 

61627

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:15:34

Post by: KalashnikovMarine

labmouse42 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Northern Mali, Yemen. Northern Afghanistan, Western Pakistan.

Frazzled...the problem is that these countries are areas where terrorists can go and be trained.

How do we best handle it?
Remember, Pakistan is a nation with nuclear capabilities -- unwarranted attacks on their soil may have dire repercussions.

If we wipe Pakistan off the map I bet India would send us a fruit basket.

*snark*

Honestly that's a problem that might very well not have a solution.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:16:47

Post by: Frazzled

ShumaGorath wrote:

No just portions of Afghanistan and in 2002*. Please get your facts together. As the immortal bard once said: "put down the bong pipe and keep up!"

I wasn't even on this forum in 2002 and you've advocated for it repeatedly. So spare the ivory tower. It's on record and it's part of why you're not a mod.

No, thats more to do with my "Thats it I'm gathering up pitchforks and torches and heading over to Shuma's house. Who with me?" thread on the DCM space. For some reason Dakka frowns on honest villagers just gathering for some light mob action. I don't know why.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:17:22

Post by: Tadashi

ShumaGorath wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:No I'm pretty sure tension between any part of Korea and Japan have been going on since before the US existed as a nation, I'm sure best korea would be trying to aim their ineffective, malfunctioning and easy to shoot down missiles at Japan still.

Why does no one acknowledge that south korea is their primary target? They're still at war and they shoot at eachother weekly.

Those missiles are aimed at both of us...they hate us, and after the events before and during WWII, I can't really blame them. Still unforgivable if they dare strike at our homeland.

Reply by: KalashnikovMarine - click to view full reply 

61627

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:17:54

Post by: KalashnikovMarine

ShumaGorath wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:No I'm pretty sure tension between any part of Korea and Japan have been going on since before the US existed as a nation, I'm sure best korea would be trying to aim their ineffective, malfunctioning and easy to shoot down missiles at Japan still.

Why does no one acknowledge that south korea is their primary target? They're still at war and they shoot at eachother weekly.

I acknowledge it, I'm just saying on the subject of NK, the nukes and Japan. No one feels the need to comment on Best Korea wanting to nuke South Korea because it's blatantly obvious. Though my guess is the Nukes are more a "back up" plan to make sure the SKs don't come after THEM.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:18:28

Post by: Tadashi

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Northern Mali, Yemen. Northern Afghanistan, Western Pakistan.

Frazzled...the problem is that these countries are areas where terrorists can go and be trained.

How do we best handle it?
Remember, Pakistan is a nation with nuclear capabilities -- unwarranted attacks on their soil may have dire repercussions.

If we wipe Pakistan off the map I bet India would send us a fruit basket.

*snark*

Honestly that's a problem that might very well not have a solution.

You can invade ala Iraq/Afghanistan.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:No I'm pretty sure tension between any part of Korea and Japan have been going on since before the US existed as a nation, I'm sure best korea would be trying to aim their ineffective, malfunctioning and easy to shoot down missiles at Japan still.

Why does no one acknowledge that south korea is their primary target? They're still at war and they shoot at eachother weekly.

I acknowledge it, I'm just saying on the subject of NK, the nukes and Japan. No one feels the need to comment on Best Korea wanting to nuke South Korea because it's blatantly obvious. Though my guess is the Nukes are more a "back up" plan to make sure the SKs don't come after THEM.

They have no intention of doing so...SK isn't exactly keen on the idea of spending money modernizing NK's ancient industries, de-militarizing its vast military, or for that matter rehabilitating and re-integrating millions of people.

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:21:05

Post by: Melissia

Good for you...now what? The more you intervene in the Middle East, the more people you incarcerate in Guantanamo, the more you create support for those cowardly scum known as terrorists.

Not really. It's pretty much too late to stop them entirely. They need a cause to maintain their organizations and we're a good, "great satan" for them to preach against-- far enough away that the ignorant masses they recruit from don't really know much, but with just enough information off the internet that they can condemn us as much as they want, so long a they present the right sort of information to their recruits. Being active on the world stage allows us to work with other countries' intelligence services and counter attacks. Being isolationist just invites another terrorist attack on the level of 9/11.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:22:33

Post by: Frazzled

labmouse42 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Northern Mali, Yemen. Northern Afghanistan, Western Pakistan.

Frazzled...the problem is that these countries are areas where terrorists can go and be trained.

How do we best handle it?
Remember, Pakistan is a nation with nuclear capabilities -- unwarranted attacks on their soil may have dire repercussions.

In 2012 under an enlightened Frazzled regime it wouldn't be an issue. We would have strong borders and security by 2013 (ok that border may be the Panama Canal, but a man can dream can't he?). Terrorists wouldn't attack us because we wouldn't be there.

Oh and its been suggested that all cats be rounded up and put into special locations, for their protection.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:23:02

Post by: Tadashi

Melissia wrote:

Good for you...now what? The more you intervene in the Middle East, the more people you incarcerate in Guantanamo, the more you create support for those cowardly scum known as terrorists.

Not really. It's pretty much too late to stop them entirely. They need a cause to maintain their organizations and we're a good, "great satan" for them to preach against-- far enough away that the ignorant masses they recruit from don't really know much, but with just enough information off the internet that they can condemn us as much as they want, so long a they present the right sort of information to their recruits.

Ok...but what about a long-term solution? Setting up garrisons and provisional governments are just short-term (if that) solutions, so what can America do to cut out this cancer?

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:24:19

Post by: Frazzled

Tadashi wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Remember boys, thanks to the Cold War, we're one "oops" away from nuclear armageddon. The only difference is that now we have nukes from China and North Korea pointed at us (ok trying to point at us NK still sucks).

The NK nukes aren't aimed at your homeland...they're aimed at my homeland, or rather, your bases there. If you want the Empire as an ally, then do something about it, or since you can't, give us an incentive to do something about it and amend Article Nine.

Insofar as they're aimed anywhere they'd be aimed at your population centers. North Koreas nukes aren't being built with the purpose of disabling American military forces, they're being built with the purpose of evaporating south korea and its population (and ensuring no one can militarily interrupt their sovereignty). If they launched one at you at all it'd just hit the closest densely populated area.

Tokyo and Yokata Air Base...no enemy has ever landed or attacked Japan in force and not suffered retribution (the American Occupation was different, the Showa Emperor cooperated and so the Americans never really invaded) - if so much as a single NK missile hits Japan, American support or not, NK will cease to exist.

Yes nothing like having the Big MO in Tokyo harbor as motivation for everyone to "remain calm."

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:28:06

Post by: Tadashi

Frazzled wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Remember boys, thanks to the Cold War, we're one "oops" away from nuclear armageddon. The only difference is that now we have nukes from China and North Korea pointed at us (ok trying to point at us NK still sucks).

The NK nukes aren't aimed at your homeland...they're aimed at my homeland, or rather, your bases there. If you want the Empire as an ally, then do something about it, or since you can't, give us an incentive to do something about it and amend Article Nine.

Insofar as they're aimed anywhere they'd be aimed at your population centers. North Koreas nukes aren't being built with the purpose of disabling American military forces, they're being built with the purpose of evaporating south korea and its population (and ensuring no one can militarily interrupt their sovereignty). If they launched one at you at all it'd just hit the closest densely populated area.

Tokyo and Yokata Air Base...no enemy has ever landed or attacked Japan in force and not suffered retribution (the American Occupation was different, the Showa Emperor cooperated and so the Americans never really invaded) - if so much as a single NK missile hits Japan, American support or not, NK will cease to exist.

Yes nothing like having the Big MO in Tokyo harbor as motivation for everyone to "remain calm."

An act of war is an act of war...you would the same of a Chinese/NK missile dropped on your homeland. If that happened Japan will stand by America, and we expect the same from America if a Chinese/NK missile dropped on our homeland. Just as Britain is your 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' in the Atlantic, let Japan be the same in the Pacific. Show some trust in the Empire, and we can bury the last of WWII's grudges and stand by you as allies...if you give platitudes and use us as meat-shields, then you'll lose over fifty years worth of built-up trust and respect.

Reply by: dogma - click to view full reply 

5534

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:29:18

Post by: dogma

Frazzled wrote:
And our wars in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea, Afghanistan. Iraq, Kuwait, and actions in Somalia helped that not a whit.

Where did I say that they did again?

Frazzled wrote:
This sounds vaguely familiar…

It should, though strangely the US then went on to be one of the most prosperous nations in the world.

Frazzled wrote:
If you have no enemies save the great evil that is Vancouver and are protected a strong Navy you didn’t need one. The UK didn’t have one either.

No, the UK had a standing army, it just went through significant restructuring due to budget cuts, and lessons learned from WWI. And those budget cuts? They weren't the result of the absence of a significant enemy, more like economic problems due to the loss of major infrastructure.

Frazzled wrote:
You mean back when we could make more than the rest of the world combined, kind of like China now?

We still produce more than China does*, we simply don't export as much as they do.

~30% of our GDP, which is significantly larger than China's, is composed of industrial production, while China's is ~20%.

I don't have any material references at hand, but I doubt the US could outproduce the rest of the world combined during the 40's.

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:29:18

Post by: Melissia

This IS the long-term solution. Isolationism is not.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:31:54

Post by: Tadashi

Melissia wrote:This IS the long-term solution. Isolationism is not.

No, its not. Your troops are spread thin, and your finances drained...there has to be another way, apart from complete isolation, like sharing responsibility with Britain and Japan instead of trying to handle it all by yourselves.

Reply by: dogma - click to view full reply 

5534

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:32:01

Post by: dogma

Frazzled wrote:
An insult after such a fine conversation. I'll take that as your white flag of surrender.

You can take it however you want, but my point stands. Considering training operations as relevant to this conversation is absurd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
When NY is vapororized by some smuggled out old USSR nuke by terrorists or Irantell me about how all that internationalism is good for the US.

Do you really think that nuclear proliferation wouldn't have occurred if there had been no Cold War?

The end of WWII left a massive power vacuum that someone was going to fill, that it was the US and the USSR was a matter of circumstance. Someone was going to develop nuclear weapons, and once someone did, someone else was going to follow suit.

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:34:34

Post by: Melissia

Tadashi wrote:Your troops are spread thin

We've withdrawn from Iraq, and are withdrawing from Afghanistan. Since the topic is "after Afghanistan", this is a false statement.

Tadashi wrote:your finances drained

The US still effectively has the best finances in the world today as far as the sheer amount of resources we can draw upon for military spending. Even China, despite its massive size, draws upon a less skilled population with less experience at modern war and less technological superiority.

Tadashi wrote:there has to be another way, apart from complete isolation, like sharing responsibility with Britain and Japan instead of trying to handle it all by yourselves.

We already do. They're really not capable of it, politically or militarily, at least not any more than they have done so recently.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:35:51

Post by: Tadashi

Melissia wrote:

Tadashi wrote:there has to be another way, apart from complete isolation, like sharing responsibility with Britain and Japan instead of trying to handle it all by yourselves.

We already do. They're really not capable of it, politically or militarily.

Show some trust in Japan, and we can do it. Give Britain an incentive/ultimatum, and they could do it.

Reply by: AustonT - click to view full reply 

29110

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:36:21

Post by: AustonT

Well Mel to be fair militarily we have a significant role in the military weakening of our allies. We picked up thier slack and if we stop there's no way they will fill that gap.

Reply by: KalashnikovMarine - click to view full reply 

61627

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:37:46

Post by: KalashnikovMarine

Tadashi you said it yourself, we have something like 50,000 troops in Japan, including my brother as it happens and a good number of my friends with the 3rd MarDiv. I'm pretty sure if anyone feths with Japan they know they're fething with the US too.

Pretty sure there's a couple long standing treaties to that effect as it happens.

Edit: missed like 6-7 posts, epic fail XD

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:38:21

Post by: Frazzled

Tadashi wrote:
An act of war is an act of war...you would the same of a Chinese/NK missile dropped on your homeland. If that happened Japan will stand by America, and we expect the same from America if a Chinese/NK missile dropped on our homeland. Just as Britain is your 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' in the Atlantic, let Japan be the same in the Pacific. Show some trust in the Empire, and we can bury the last of WWII's grudges and stand by you as allies...if you give platitudes and use us as meat-shields, then you'll lose over fifty years worth of built-up trust and respect.

Why? To be isolationist means you're on your pal. No US city gets nuked for you.

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:38:58

Post by: Melissia

AustonT wrote:Well Mel to be fair militarily we have a significant role in the military weakening of our allies. We picked up thier slack and if we stop there's no way they will fill that gap.

This is certainly true.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:40:07

Post by: Frazzled

Tadashi wrote:

Melissia wrote:This IS the long-term solution. Isolationism is not.

No, its not. Your troops are spread thin, and your finances drained...there has to be another way, apart from complete isolation, like sharing responsibility with Britain and Japan instead of trying to handle it all by yourselves.

One way or another the US will pull back in a major way, just like the UK and Spain did. Its already started.
To quote agent Smith: "Mr. Anderson that sound is the sound of inevitability."

Reply by: AustonT - click to view full reply 

29110

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:41:15

Post by: AustonT

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:Well Mel to be fair militarily we have a significant role in the military weakening of our allies. We picked up thier slack and if we stop there's no way they will fill that gap.

This is certainly true.

Oh yeah and we sold our major allies on the F-35. Our own procurement stupidity is now world wide.

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:42:09

Post by: Melissia

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:Well Mel to be fair militarily we have a significant role in the military weakening of our allies. We picked up thier slack and if we stop there's no way they will fill that gap.

This is certainly true.

Oh yeah and we sold our major allies on the F-35. Our own procurement stupidity is now world wide.

I'm surprised. With how many chunks the F35 blows, I'd have expected people to say no.

We must have pulled some serious political capital to get that thing sold.

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:42:32

Post by: ShumaGorath

Tadashi wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Remember boys, thanks to the Cold War, we're one "oops" away from nuclear armageddon. The only difference is that now we have nukes from China and North Korea pointed at us (ok trying to point at us NK still sucks).

The NK nukes aren't aimed at your homeland...they're aimed at my homeland, or rather, your bases there. If you want the Empire as an ally, then do something about it, or since you can't, give us an incentive to do something about it and amend Article Nine.

Insofar as they're aimed anywhere they'd be aimed at your population centers. North Koreas nukes aren't being built with the purpose of disabling American military forces, they're being built with the purpose of evaporating south korea and its population (and ensuring no one can militarily interrupt their sovereignty). If they launched one at you at all it'd just hit the closest densely populated area.

Tokyo and Yokata Air Base...no enemy has ever landed or attacked Japan in force and not suffered retribution (the American Occupation was different, the Showa Emperor cooperated and so the Americans never really invaded) - if so much as a single NK missile hits Japan, American support or not, NK will cease to exist.

What you posted has seemingly nothing to do with what I posted.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:44:50

Post by: Tadashi

Frazzled wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
An act of war is an act of war...you would the same of a Chinese/NK missile dropped on your homeland. If that happened Japan will stand by America, and we expect the same from America if a Chinese/NK missile dropped on our homeland. Just as Britain is your 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' in the Atlantic, let Japan be the same in the Pacific. Show some trust in the Empire, and we can bury the last of WWII's grudges and stand by you as allies...if you give platitudes and use us as meat-shields, then you'll lose over fifty years worth of built-up trust and respect.

Why? To be isolationist means you're on your pal. No US city gets nuked for you.

So the Japanese Empire gets abandoned...complete isolationism really does bite in the ass...if that's the case, we have no choice: the Japanese Empire must re-militarize. But if its just partial isolationism - as in America places more responsibility and trust on its allies and allows them to 'grow claws and talons', then we can still stand together as allies.

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:46:01

Post by: Melissia

So you're just looking for what's best for Japan?

Screw that. Isolationism isn't about what's good for other countries. Screw other countries. If we go isolationist, Japan can fend for its fething self.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:46:16

Post by: Tadashi

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:Well Mel to be fair militarily we have a significant role in the military weakening of our allies. We picked up thier slack and if we stop there's no way they will fill that gap.

This is certainly true.

Oh yeah and we sold our major allies on the F-35. Our own procurement stupidity is now world wide.

I'm surprised. With how many chunks the F35 blows, I'd have expected people to say no.

We must have pulled some serious political capital to get that thing sold.

Supposedly Mitsubishi is working on a prototype fighter jet to give our air force an equivalent to the F-22, or so heard.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:47:00

Post by: Frazzled

We can stand as economic partners. We don't need military allies if we only are protecting ourselves. Interestingly, you really don't either. If you're not aggressive, oceans are wonderful things.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:47:13

Post by: Tadashi

Melissia wrote:So you're just looking for what's best for Japan?

Screw that. Isolationism isn't about what's good for other countries. Screw other countries. If we go isolationist, Japan can fend for its fething self.

Then the Empire will rise again, and this time, it will end differently. Our technology will overshadow the Pacific...or worse, Japan and China form a co-prosperity sphere between them and seize control of East Asia and the West Pacific together.

Frazzled wrote:We can stand as economic partners. We don't need military allies if we only are protecting ourselves. Interestingly, you really don't either. If you're not aggressive, oceans are wonderful things.

Tell that to China...either we stand alone, with America, or with China.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:56:00

Post by: Frazzled

If America is just trading with you what do we care what you do? I have no special beef with China. My relatives fought them just like they fought the Japanese. If they and you leave us alone then I am fine and happy with them.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 14:57:41

Post by: Tadashi

Frazzled wrote:If America is just trading with you what do we care what you do? I have no special beef with China. My relatives fought them just like they fought the Japanese. If they and you leave us alone then I am fine and happy with them.

So you're fine with either Japanese fleets ruling the seas and skies over the Pacific, or Japan and China building an empire together across the Asia-Pacific?

Reply by: AustonT - click to view full reply 

29110

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 15:03:12

Post by: AustonT

Tadashi wrote:

Melissia wrote:So you're just looking for what's best for Japan?

Screw that. Isolationism isn't about what's good for other countries. Screw other countries. If we go isolationist, Japan can fend for its fething self.

Then the Empire will rise again, and this time, it will end differently. Our technology will overshadow the Pacific...or worse, Japan and China form a co-prosperity sphere between them and seize control of East Asia and the West Pacific together.

Frazzled wrote:We can stand as economic partners. We don't need military allies if we only are protecting ourselves. Interestingly, you really don't either. If you're not aggressive, oceans are wonderful things.

Tell that to China...either we stand alone, with America, or with China.

Oh thanks for that, I haven't laughed that hard all week. If I can get a hillbillie to say the South will rise again I may reach nirvana.
Erm Frazz?

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 15:05:08

Post by: Frazzled

Tadashi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If America is just trading with you what do we care what you do? I have no special beef with China. My relatives fought them just like they fought the Japanese. If they and you leave us alone then I am fine and happy with them.

So you're fine with either Japanese fleets ruling the seas and skies over the Pacific, or Japan and China building an empire together across the Asia-Pacific?

Fine? No. Enough to get giggy about it? Also no.
I'll sell you stuff, you sell me stuff. life is good. If you don't want to buy my stuff, fine I'll shrug and won't buy your stuff either. What else is this evil empire going to do to a major nuclear power?

Oh thanks for that, I haven't laughed that hard all week. If I can get a hillbillie to say the South will rise again I may reach nirvana.
Erm Frazz?

Sorry I've been remiss. Let me help. The South will rise again! Oh wait, Texas never fell. Never mind then.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 15:07:32

Post by: Manchu

Isolationism is the hobgoblin of defeatist reactionaries.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 15:10:09

Post by: Frazzled

Manchu wrote:Isolationism is the hobgoblin of defeatist reactionaries.

And peacenik hippy tree huggers. Don't forget them. Time to break out the Hawaiian flower power shirt. Oh wait I'm already wearing one.

And I think -now that I realize I'm wearing one my dozen Hawaiian shirts- the more relevant question is, how on earth am I going to survive a 3 hour tournament outside, in Austin? Its like 8million degrees in Austin. What was I thinking??? I'm gonna die.

Reply by: AustonT - click to view full reply 

29110

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 15:12:16

Post by: AustonT

Manchu wrote:Isolationism is the hobgoblin of defeatist reactionaries.

Do you really believe that or is it just to elicit a response?

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 15:16:56

Post by: Frazzled

AustonT wrote:

Manchu wrote:Isolationism is the hobgoblin of defeatist reactionaries.

Do you really believe that or is it just to elicit a response?

Well to be fair hobgoblinism is the isolation of defeatist reactionaries.

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 15:21:01

Post by: Melissia

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:Isolationism is the hobgoblin of defeatist reactionaries.

And peacenik hippy tree huggers. Don't forget them. Time to break out the Hawaiian flower power shirt. Oh wait I'm already wearing one.

And I think -now that I realize I'm wearing one my dozen Hawaiian shirts- the more relevant question is, how on earth am I going to survive a 3 hour tournament outside, in Austin? Its like 8million degrees in Austin. What was I thinking??? I'm gonna die.

Well ,it is Austin, the Gay Capital of Texas, I'm sure there'll be a handsome rogue glad to "cool you off".

Reply by: CT GAMER - click to view full reply 

14152

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 15:39:31

Post by: CT GAMER

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Northern Mali, Yemen. Northern Afghanistan, Western Pakistan.

Frazzled...the problem is that these countries are areas where terrorists can go and be trained.

How do we best handle it?
Remember, Pakistan is a nation with nuclear capabilities -- unwarranted attacks on their soil may have dire repercussions.

If we wipe Pakistan off the map I bet India would send us a fruit basket.

*snark*

This thread demonstrates why some topics are just too complex for the internet to discuss with any validity...

Reply by: LordofHats - click to view full reply 

21720

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 16:05:28

Post by: LordofHats

Someone doesn't want a fruit basket

Reply by: AustonT - click to view full reply 

29110

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 16:15:46

Post by: AustonT

Who doesn't like fruit?

Reply by: xole - click to view full reply 

53251

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 16:16:18

Post by: xole

Tadashi wrote:So you're fine with either Japanese fleets ruling the seas and skies over the Pacific, or Japan and China building an empire together across the Asia-Pacific?

If you think that Japan and China would ever become military allies I think you are gravely mistaken.

Reply by: LordofHats - click to view full reply 

21720

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 16:29:59

Post by: LordofHats

AustonT wrote:Who doesn't like fruit?

Commies and terrorists. That's who

Reply by: AustonT - click to view full reply 

29110

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 16:32:58

Post by: AustonT

I can't believe we got to 5 pages:
Nazis that's who
GODWIN!

Reply by: Jihadin - click to view full reply 

50512

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 17:41:13

Post by: Jihadin

I agree. Five pages. Numerous mention of the "Japanese Empire"

I'm with SHuma though on NK "nukes" are aimed at South Korea and not at Japan.

Reply by: xole - click to view full reply 

53251

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 17:45:40

Post by: xole

Jihadin wrote:I agree. Five pages. Numerous mention of the "Japanese Empire"

I'm with SHuma though on NK "nukes" are aimed at South Korea and not at Japan.

A country we are also in. So that they can fund education without fear of attack. Also something about being an ally. Yay.

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 18:27:30

Post by: Melissia

The Japanese Empire phrases remind me of "The South Will Rise Again!"

Reply by: AustonT - click to view full reply 

29110

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 18:39:15

Post by: AustonT

Melissia wrote:The Japanese Empire phrases remind me of "The South Will Rise Again!"

Me too.

AustonT wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Then the Empire will rise again, and this time, it will end differently. Our technology will overshadow the Pacific...or worse, Japan and China form a co-prosperity sphere between them and seize control of East Asia and the West Pacific together.

Oh thanks for that, I haven't laughed that hard all week. If I can get a hillbillie to say the South will rise again I may reach nirvana.
Erm Frazz?

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 19:06:52

Post by: Frazzled

The Fallen shall rise?

Reply by: labmouse42 - click to view full reply 

1943

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 19:53:01

Post by: labmouse42

Frazzled wrote:The Fallen shall rise?

If they do, we will need a boomstick!

Reply by: Squigsquasher - click to view full reply 

34252

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 20:49:42

Post by: Squigsquasher

Well I certainly think the US should stop going "They don't use our type of government lets shoot them hurr durr!". And they can get their arses out of Germany and Japan, for certain. I see no reason why Germany needs a US garrison, and the same for Japan, especially given the cases of US troops raping schoolgirls (Yes, that's Okinawa and not technically Japan, but still). Give them back a military for Emperor's sake.

I don't think the US should stop sending things like food aid though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:The Fallen shall rise?

This...Is not...Your planet...to rule...The Fallen...Shall rise...AGAAAAAAIINNN!!!!!


On topic again, New Japanese Empire? Really?

Besides, Japan took over a long time ago, they were just polite about it.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/17 23:25:30

Post by: Tadashi

Squigsquasher wrote:


On topic again, New Japanese Empire? Really?

Besides, Japan took over a long time ago, they were just polite about it.

Its just good business...

And don't leave...as long as you're there, we can make money at your expense.

Reply by: Ketara - click to view full reply 

11029

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/18 00:53:50

Post by: Ketara

Why does Japan keep getting called the Empire?

Reply by: djones520 - click to view full reply 

23

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/18 01:08:57

Post by: djones520

Squigsquasher wrote:Well I certainly think the US should stop going "They don't use our type of government lets shoot them hurr durr!". And they can get their arses out of Germany and Japan, for certain. I see no reason why Germany needs a US garrison, and the same for Japan, especially given the cases of US troops raping schoolgirls (Yes, that's Okinawa and not technically Japan, but still). Give them back a military for Emperor's sake.

I don't think the US should stop sending things like food aid though.

1st point... well, it's pointless. Iraq has a government nothing like ours. Nor does Afghanistan. I'm talking now, not pre-invasion. If we were to invade every country that did not have a government like ours, you'd be speaking American English instead of the Queen's English by now.

2nd Point, We're in Japan and Germany for multiple reasons. The governments want us there, we provide a huge amount of money for their economies. Secondly, our ability to forward deploy from those locations are key. They provide our worldwide capabilities that let us respond to a crisis within hours to days as is necessary. How do you think the majority of British assets made it to Iraq and Afghanistan? I can gaurantee you that our military, and our bases in Europe and the Middle East played a large roll. I'm not just talking about wartime scenarios either though. When the tsunami struck Indonesia some years back it was our forces baesd in Japan that were providing immediate relief. How many more would have died without our ability to provide assistance as quickly as we did?

Thirdly, Japan's military is one of the strongest and most advanced in the world. At the same time they have 3 strategic opponents literally in their back yard, two of whom are juggernaughts. Our forces in Japan provide an extra umbrella of safety to them. With US bases largely intermingled with Japanese forces means that it would be impossible to strike one without the other. And you don't swing at us if your not willing to face the strongest military machine in the world, by extension you don't swing at our friends.

The US military is more then a killing machine. That is our primary job, for sure, and we are damn good at it. No agency in the world though also has the humanitarian capacity that the US military has. We use our ability to project worldwide for the good of all mankind, and while yes we can launch a B-2 from Missouri, have it drop a bomb in Tehran, and then land back home again, it's not quite that easy to do with every thing else that is required of us.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/18 01:15:12

Post by: Tadashi

Ketara wrote:Why does Japan keep getting called the Empire?

Because we have an Emperor on the throne?

djones520 wrote:

Thirdly, Japan's military is one of the strongest and most advanced in the world.

Its more of a shield rather than a halberd, so while we can defend ourselves adequately, we can't really strike back.

Reply by: djones520 - click to view full reply 

23

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/18 01:21:38

Post by: djones520

Which is also why we are there. I worked hand in hand with the JASDF for 4.5 years, I'm well aware of their capabilities. Their military is an excellent defensive machine. Plenty strong enough to provide time for their bigger friends to bring their bigger guns to the party.

Reply by: Ketara - click to view full reply 

11029

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/18 01:27:43

Post by: Ketara

Tadashi wrote:

Ketara wrote:Why does Japan keep getting called the Empire?

Because we have an Emperor on the throne?

.

'Empire' has a lot of bad connotations these days. Probably the reason why I've never heard a single Japanese person other than yourself call it one. 'Empire', is a Western phrase and affectation that usually involves the subjugation and colonisation of others, not the nicest of things, or indeed memories of Japan to be associated with.

Just Japan, Nippon or plain old simple Nihon do for most people. I mean, I could type out, 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain' every time I referred to the old place, but it looks a little silly.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/18 01:32:20

Post by: Tadashi

djones520 wrote:Which is also why we are there. I worked hand in hand with the JASDF for 4.5 years, I'm well aware of their capabilities. Their military is an excellent defensive machine. Plenty strong enough to provide time for their bigger friends to bring their bigger guns to the party.

Well nationalists don't like the idea, and some people consider the US presence as just adding more targets in Japan for China and North Korea.

Reply by: DAaddict - click to view full reply 

8620

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/18 01:33:36

Post by: DAaddict

I too am leaning towards an isolationist mentality. Not saying we should in no wise intervene but i think Iray and Afganistan have taught us that boots on the ground and police force to "democratize" the world is a farce.

I would advocate we keep the carriers and the drones. Increase the use of special forces. Increase our airlift capability. In conjunction with that reduce the number of "heavy" divisions. I think the age of being prepared to fight two simultaneous wars is outdated and too costly.

The world's threats seem to be organizations rather than nations. A carrier strike force should be deterrent enough for most nations. Meanwhile the threat of drone retaliation or special forces targeted attacks should be sufficient for destabilizing any organisation that wants to hit the US.

Minus the Manifest Destiny of taking the west from Mexico and Native Americans, the average US citizen has been isolationist.

Afghanistan - The post 9/11 world - this was a strike on the Taliban who was harboring the organisation that attacked the US.
Iraq II - The lie of WMD. It seemed justified.
Iraq I - They took over Kuwait and seemed to be threatening Saudi Arabia. Hello. Threaten ours and the world's oil supply.
Grenada/Panama - The Monroe doctrine at work - at least in expanded form.
Vietnam - The height of the Cold War - the Dominoe effect was the operating doctrine. Vietnam is not a big thing but Malasia,Thailand, the Phillipines... cannot be risked.
Cuba - Sorry nukes planted off the coast of the US was a major threat.
Korea - The beginning of the Cold War. North Korea attacked and would have fallen. (Remember this is 2 years after Nationalist China became Communist.)
WW II - We were happy in a semi-belligerent state being the arsenal for Democracy until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
WW I - Submarines were new and while Britain "peacefully" maintained a blockade on Germany, the unrestricted submarine warfare and blundering German diplomacy finally became too much.
The Spanish-American War - The sinking of the Maine - while it may have been trumped up - got the American people enraged.

The Civil War - A fight for states rights versus the sovereighty of the nation all wrapped up in slavery...
The War of 1812 - British taking American sailors and impressing them into service. Sorry too much to handle.
The Revolutionary War - The ham-handed British rule became too mush to swallow. Some reluctantly some enthusiastically fought for freedom.

Now the reasoning may be somewhat simple but as a baseline for the average citizen, they were the things that made going to war seem like a good thing. I am not saying that the press or the government or Wall Street did not - in some cases- raise the cause to a threat level but the US as a citizenry, have not nationalistically aggressively declared war excepting the ongoing assimilation of the West.

And in that case, I will state that the European forebears didn't set an exemplar example for the US. As I recall, Spanish conquest of lands. German and French imperialism, British economic imperialism, Japanese and German aggression, Russian imperialism, Soviet expansion have all played a role in or directly resulted in US aquisition of land.

Again as I have said Mea Culpa on the west but the American people -as opposed to the government/wall street/etc. - have never had an aggressive nationalistic expansion or interventionist leaning.

It is that sort of isolationism that I wish we would return to. As a matter of fact, the best thing we could do to make this happen is push for an alternate method of powering our vehicles and industry. Then we could care less about what happens in the Middle East.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/18 01:35:08

Post by: Tadashi

Ketara wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Ketara wrote:Why does Japan keep getting called the Empire?

Because we have an Emperor on the throne?

.

'Empire' has a lot of bad connotations these days. Probably the reason why I've never heard a single Japanese person other than yourself call it one. 'Empire', is a Western phrase and affectation that usually involves the subjugation and colonisation of others, not the nicest of things, or indeed memories of Japan to be associated with.

Just Japan, Nippon or plain old simple Nihon do for most people. I mean, I could type out, 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain' every time I referred to the old place, but it looks a little silly.

IRL I don't call it that, seeing as that's asking for trouble (not sure if that's the case in Japan, since I've never debated politics when I go there, as I have other matters to attend to), but this is the internet - its free. I can be a nationalist as much as I want.

Reply by: Ketara - click to view full reply 

11029

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/18 01:40:28

Post by: Ketara

Tadashi wrote:

IRL I don't call it that, seeing as that's asking for trouble (not sure if that's the case in Japan, since I've never debated politics when I go there, as I have other matters to attend to), but this is the internet - its free. I can be a nationalist as much as I want.

Well, Dakka is a benign dictatorship under the well polished heel of yakface, not quite free.

Other than that minor detail, go nuts I guess. Like I said, it just sounds a little silly is all. People puffing up with nationalistic fervour generally do. That may be the British sensibilities coming out though.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/18 01:48:02

Post by: Tadashi

Ketara wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

IRL I don't call it that, seeing as that's asking for trouble (not sure if that's the case in Japan, since I've never debated politics when I go there, as I have other matters to attend to), but this is the internet - its free. I can be a nationalist as much as I want.

Well, Dakka is a benign dictatorship under the well polished heel of yakface, not quite free.

Lol...

Other than that minor detail, go nuts I guess. Like I said, it just sounds a little silly is all. People puffing up with nationalistic fervour generally do. That may be the British sensibilities coming out though.

Your nationalist pride does show when your royals make an appearance, or at least that's how it looks to me.

Japanese nationalism is relatively benign these days, though its still there - just look at the number of visitors to Yasukuni Shrine (I myself went there a few years ago), the number of people who go and see the Emperor during his annual public appearance at his birthday, and the recent rise to power of neo-nationalist politicians in the Parliament. TBH, IIRC, extreme nationalism (ala WWII) isn't that common, but nationalism to the point we become not a dependent of America and more of an ally seems to be growing in strength, no thanks to those frakheads on the mainland.

Reply by: nomsheep - click to view full reply 

31953

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/18 01:56:39

Post by: nomsheep

if America backs out of everything militarily , then someone will step in to replace them. most likely us in an attempt to regain our former glory, Russia or china. . either that or we ( the British) will follow suit and back out as well, which wouldn't really be such a bad thing since we are slowly fixing our economy and sorting ourselves out.


Nom

Reply by: Squigsquasher - click to view full reply 

34252

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/18 10:48:13

Post by: Squigsquasher

djones520 wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Well I certainly think the US should stop going "They don't use our type of government lets shoot them hurr durr!". And they can get their arses out of Germany and Japan, for certain. I see no reason why Germany needs a US garrison, and the same for Japan, especially given the cases of US troops raping schoolgirls (Yes, that's Okinawa and not technically Japan, but still). Give them back a military for Emperor's sake.

I don't think the US should stop sending things like food aid though.

1st point... well, it's pointless. Iraq has a government nothing like ours. Nor does Afghanistan. I'm talking now, not pre-invasion. If we were to invade every country that did not have a government like ours, you'd be speaking American English instead of the Queen's English by now.

2nd Point, We're in Japan and Germany for multiple reasons. The governments want us there, we provide a huge amount of money for their economies. Secondly, our ability to forward deploy from those locations are key. They provide our worldwide capabilities that let us respond to a crisis within hours to days as is necessary. How do you think the majority of British assets made it to Iraq and Afghanistan? I can gaurantee you that our military, and our bases in Europe and the Middle East played a large roll. I'm not just talking about wartime scenarios either though. When the tsunami struck Indonesia some years back it was our forces baesd in Japan that were providing immediate relief. How many more would have died without our ability to provide assistance as quickly as we did?

Thirdly, Japan's military is one of the strongest and most advanced in the world. At the same time they have 3 strategic opponents literally in their back yard, two of whom are juggernaughts. Our forces in Japan provide an extra umbrella of safety to them. With US bases largely intermingled with Japanese forces means that it would be impossible to strike one without the other. And you don't swing at us if your not willing to face the strongest military machine in the world, by extension you don't swing at our friends.

The US military is more then a killing machine. That is our primary job, for sure, and we are damn good at it. No agency in the world though also has the humanitarian capacity that the US military has. We use our ability to project worldwide for the good of all mankind, and while yes we can launch a B-2 from Missouri, have it drop a bomb in Tehran, and then land back home again, it's not quite that easy to do with every thing else that is required of us.

The Japanese bases I can kind of understand (kind of) but the German ones? Who is going to suddenly declare war on Germany? Belgium?

Reply by: KalashnikovMarine - click to view full reply 

61627

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/18 11:02:10

Post by: KalashnikovMarine

Our forward deployed bases in the pacific are excellent and worth keeping. Except for a couple major mobility hubs in Germany and Britain (which allows us to retain global mobility, which is damn important) there isn't a single base in Europe worth keeping. The Bundeswehr is more then capable of fighting on it's own and we have absolutely no need to A. hold it's hand or B. get caught up in the next European war if we can avoid it.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/18 13:11:55

Post by: Tadashi

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Our forward deployed bases in the pacific are excellent and worth keeping. Except for a couple major mobility hubs in Germany and Britain (which allows us to retain global mobility, which is damn important) there isn't a single base in Europe worth keeping. The Bundeswehr is more then capable of fighting on it's own and we have absolutely no need to A. hold it's hand or B. get caught up in the next European war if we can avoid it.

Technically so can the Japanese Army and Navy...we'll still be your allies, so losing the bases there aren't really that bad.

Reply by: dogma - click to view full reply 

5534

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/18 14:41:10

Post by: dogma

djones520 wrote: We use our ability to project worldwide for the good of all mankind...

Eh, we use our military for the good of the United States. We didn't provide humanitarian aid to the tsunami victims out of good will, we provided it in order to develop political clout. The US has a long, and storied history of using humanitarian aid as a political tool, much like every other country that exists.

Now, that doesn't mean it isn't a good thing (it also doesn't mean it isn't a bad thing*), but it does mean that helping people is usually not the driving force behind action.



*Many have argued that humanitarian aid actually acerbates the underlying issues, rather than helping to solve them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Our forward deployed bases in the pacific are excellent and worth keeping. Except for a couple major mobility hubs in Germany and Britain (which allows us to retain global mobility, which is damn important) there isn't a single base in Europe worth keeping.

NSA Naples is also very useful.

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/18 15:42:45

Post by: Melissia

 dogma wrote:
*Many have argued that humanitarian aid actually acerbates the underlying issues, rather than helping to solve them.

But few of them offer a reasonable alternative.

Many of them are the same people that say "lift themselves up by their own bootstraps!" and other such pithy, worthless phrases.

Reply by: LumenPraebeo - click to view full reply 

44591

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/18 15:51:22

Post by: LumenPraebeo

 Melissia wrote:

 dogma wrote:
*Many have argued that humanitarian aid actually acerbates the underlying issues, rather than helping to solve them.

But few of them offer a reasonable alternative.

Many of them are the same people that say "lift themselves up by their own bootstraps!" and other such pithy, worthless phrases.

Plus there are many resources that the US has that other countries don't have...and they're worthless to us.

Reply by: dogma - click to view full reply 

5534

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/18 16:26:46

Post by: dogma

 Melissia wrote:
But few of them offer a reasonable alternative.

Many of them are the same people that say "lift themselves up by their own bootstraps!" and other such pithy, worthless phrases.

Actually, many of them are people from the countries receiving humanitarian aid, and people working in the aid industry. And they do offer a reasonable alternative: stop giving humanitarian aid.

The argument is basically two-fold. First, humanitarian aid may serve to prolong wars by giving fighters a safe haven to retreat to. Second, humanitarian aid may serve to prop up dictatorships by ameliorating their poor policy choices.

I'll grant you that what I view as an interesting argument is often hijacked by libertarians and conservatives looking to either bolster free market rhetoric, or play on the notion of government waste through populism, but its still something to consider.

Reply by: DOOMBREAD - click to view full reply 

60131

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/18 18:58:32

Post by: DOOMBREAD

We could stop sticking our nose in the affairs of other countries to some extent, but I'm not sure we should become completely isolationist.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/22 07:09:59

Post by: sebster

This thread has taught me that many Americans are blissfully unaware of their own nation's military history, and when told about it they'll just ignore it because they like to believe something different. And I've learned that people like to pretend their country isn't dependant on other nation's for resource and material supplies, and that their economy would truck along nicely even if such things were threatened.

I mean, I know people like to complain about politicians, but given the level of knowledge in this thread and the general level of indifference showed to that information, can imagine if countries were run by ordinary citizens? Horrifying.

 dogma wrote:
I'll grant you that what I view as an interesting argument is often hijacked by libertarians and conservatives looking to either bolster free market rhetoric, or play on the notion of government waste through populism, but its still something to consider.

Especially when you look at the real substance of what the humanitarian groups are saying - they're arguing don't just give aid blindly, but instead give specific forms of aid that come with strong conditions for the ruling government.

Reply by: Amaya - click to view full reply 

34168

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/22 07:43:33

Post by: Amaya

While America has never truly been isolationist, it also has never been as involved in world affairs to the same degree in the past as it has been post WWII. I don't think economic isolation would work, but Americans need to learn that we have no business propping up illegitimate states (Israel primarily) and launching unjustified wars of aggression.

Whether or not Imperialism is wrong is an entirely separate debate, but the fact remains that a nation can not be imperialistic without public support. Americans have never admitted to imperialistic tendencies even though they existed in the past, but they certainly do not exist now and the government needs to understand that without a big bad (Nazi Germany, USSR) to oppose Americans have no desire to interfere in other nation's affairs.

I almost think some of these politicians envision modern America as the spiritual successor of the British Empire and that simply isn't the case.

Reply by: Bromsy - click to view full reply 

30287

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/22 08:18:34

Post by: Bromsy

I think, as an American, that Americas influence on the world has been a net positive. The idea that some other country thrust into the dominant power level that we were would some how be more benevolent and kindhearted than us is fairly laughable, given human nature and the long view of history. If there was some infallible way of leveling the playing field for all nations then by all means, I would be on board. Failing that, I doubt there is any nation or group of nations who could take the reigns from us and make the world a significantly better place.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/23 05:34:50

Post by: sebster

 Amaya wrote:
While America has never truly been isolationist, it also has never been as involved in world affairs to the same degree in the past as it has been post WWII. I don't think economic isolation would work, but Americans need to learn that we have no business propping up illegitimate states (Israel primarily) and launching unjustified wars of aggression.

The issue comes that with an international economy you need a military that can protect American business interests overseas.

I almost think some of these politicians envision modern America as the spiritual successor of the British Empire and that simply isn't the case.

Well, you haven't caused a famine killing 10 million Indians yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:
I think, as an American, that Americas influence on the world has been a net positive.

I think any reasonably honest view of history would have to conclude the US has been the most reasonable of empires we've yet seen. At the same time, a reasonably honest view of American Imperialism would have to have a pretty large chapter on the messed up things they've done.

I mean that's just how it is, when you have the power to feth with other people's countries you do some good things and some bad things. The answer isn't to pretend you'll just stop using that power, because that's never, ever going to happen. It couldn't, even if you wanted it to.

The answer is to is try and develop a mature way of dealing with that power, and trying as often as possible to go down paths that'll benefit all nations.

Reply by: whembly - click to view full reply 

34390

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/23 05:39:40

Post by: whembly

 sebster wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
While America has never truly been isolationist, it also has never been as involved in world affairs to the same degree in the past as it has been post WWII. I don't think economic isolation would work, but Americans need to learn that we have no business propping up illegitimate states (Israel primarily) and launching unjustified wars of aggression.

The issue comes that with an international economy you need a military that can protect American business interests overseas.

I almost think some of these politicians envision modern America as the spiritual successor of the British Empire and that simply isn't the case.

Well, you haven't caused a famine killing 10 million Indians yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:
I think, as an American, that Americas influence on the world has been a net positive.

I think any reasonably honest view of history would have to conclude the US has been the most reasonable of empires we've yet seen. At the same time, a reasonably honest view of American Imperialism would have to have a pretty large chapter on the messed up things they've done.

We unfortunately wiped out many native Native Americans...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
I think, as an American, that Americas influence on the world has been a net positive.

I think any reasonably honest view of history would have to conclude the US has been the most reasonable of empires we've yet seen. At the same time, a reasonably honest view of American Imperialism would have to have a pretty large chapter on the messed up things they've done.

I mean that's just how it is, when you have the power to feth with other people's countries you do some good things and some bad things. The answer isn't to pretend you'll just stop using that power, because that's never, ever going to happen. It couldn't, even if you wanted it to.

The answer is to is try and develop a mature way of dealing with that power, and trying as often as possible to go down paths that'll benefit all nations.

Other than being an extremely wealthy country, what power do we "really" have?

Yeah, we have a large military... but, look how long it takes us to address Iraq/Afganistan... in the end, was it really worth it? (imo, yes)

I think it stems from that fact that we're not in a World War 2 mindset... if we were, we would've bombed the enemies (and civies) to kindom come. Nowadays, it seems we're always walking on ice.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/23 05:49:32

Post by: BaronIveagh

Personally, I'm hoping for some karmic payback. A disease that wipes out 90% of everyone but Native Americans and Irishmen. It's hellva unlikely, but I can dream.

Reply by: Amaya - click to view full reply 

34168

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/23 06:20:25

Post by: Amaya

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Personally, I'm hoping for some karmic payback. A disease that wipes out 90% of everyone but Native Americans and Irishmen. It's hellva unlikely, but I can dream.

And this wins the stupid post of the day award.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/23 06:26:20

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Amaya wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Personally, I'm hoping for some karmic payback. A disease that wipes out 90% of everyone but Native Americans and Irishmen. It's hellva unlikely, but I can dream.

And this wins the stupid post of the day award.

Well, everyone is talking about gak that will never happen, so I figured I'd just throw my two cents in that VITAS would be a good thing, and if the guys who wrote Shadowrun are right, it's just around the corner.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/23 07:08:18

Post by: Tadashi

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Personally, I'm hoping for some karmic payback. A disease that wipes out 90% of everyone but Native Americans and Irishmen. It's hellva unlikely, but I can dream.

Impossible...Human DNA only has cosmetic differences, which would make creating an American-only bioweapon impossible - while the genophage, while tempting (if only because it would make every pro-abortionist eat their words), would affect all Humans.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/23 07:14:49

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Tadashi wrote:

Impossible...Human DNA only has cosmetic differences, which would make creating an American-only bioweapon impossible - while the genophage, while tempting (if only because it would make every pro-abortionist eat their words), would affect all Humans.

Actually you aim it at mitochondrial DNA, which is more consistent throughout genotypes.

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/23 07:19:06

Post by: Tadashi

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Tadashi wrote:

Impossible...Human DNA only has cosmetic differences, which would make creating an American-only bioweapon impossible - while the genophage, while tempting (if only because it would make every pro-abortionist eat their words), would affect all Humans.

Actually you aim it at mitochondrial DNA, which is more consistent throughout genotypes.

Yes...but it would still very risky, especially since it specifically targets Human DNA...a single mutation could end up wiping us all out. Compared to nuclear weapons, biological weapons pose a far higher threat.

Reply by: Bromsy - click to view full reply 

30287

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/23 09:01:21

Post by: Bromsy

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Personally, I'm hoping for some karmic payback. A disease that wipes out 90% of everyone but Native Americans and Irishmen. It's hellva unlikely, but I can dream.

I really don't understand how that would benefit the world. I seriously doubt many "native americans" are equipped mentally, socially, or physically to return to a pre industrial society, let alone Irishmen. And I dare say, that that 10% of others who survived would still significantly outnumber the natives, and might take umbrage at their special survival rates. Plus, karma is total bs.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/23 14:20:32

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Bromsy wrote:

I really don't understand how that would benefit the world. I seriously doubt many "native americans" are equipped mentally, socially, or physically to return to a pre industrial society, let alone Irishmen. And I dare say, that that 10% of others who survived would still significantly outnumber the natives, and might take umbrage at their special survival rates. Plus, karma is total bs.

I love the quotations, . And what do you mean 'return'? Have you seen some of the conditions they deal with out west? And why would Ireland return to a preindustrial society? (granted, they don't have vast natural resources, but they also don't have a staggering population.)

I'll point out another thing: that would men that, in North America, 31-40 million people would survive, spread out across the continent. However, Natives have thoughtfully been pushed together in large groups. Mind you, Mexico would probably just invade at that point, with South America being the new Super Power on the block...

Reply by: Tadashi - click to view full reply 

51396

Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?  @ 2012/08/23 14:41:44

Post by: Tadashi

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

I really don't understand how that would benefit the world. I seriously doubt many "native americans" are equipped mentally, socially, or physically to return to a pre industrial society, let alone Irishmen. And I dare say, that that 10% of others who survived would still significantly outnumber the natives, and might take umbrage at their special survival rates. Plus, karma is total bs.

I love the quotations, . And what do you mean 'return'? Have you seen some of the conditions they deal with out west? And why would Ireland return to a preindustrial society? (granted, they don't have vast natural resources, but they also don't have a staggering population.)

I'll point out another thing: that would men that, in North America, 31-40 million people would survive, spread out across the continent. However, Natives have thoughtfully been pushed together in large groups. Mind you, Mexico would probably just invade at that point, with South America being the new Super Power on the block...

Japan, China, and the two Koreas would start squabbling again. Oh, well...we'll make it work.