Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Owlbread]

I was thinking to myself the other day that if any country could afford to be isolationist, it would be the USA. Would you gentlemen agree with that assessment?

[Solifuge]

Define "Could Afford".

When it comes to natural resources... yeah, we could probably afford to pull off hardcore isolationism, and not miss out on too many things vital to modern society. We'd have to go without a lot of cool foods, some rare earth metals and raw materials that are tough to find here, would slow our research and development, and we'd have to retool our domestic industry significantly.

Culturally and/or socially, though... I think it would tear us apart. And if nothing else, it would serve to increase the close-minded xenophobic "Those Guys Are Different Than Us" sentiments that already overwhelm many Americans' human decency and common sense, and lead us to a lot of pretty stupid, terrible things. I do not believe I would want to live in an Isolationist US, at all. It seems like a great way to usher in the whole Fundamentalist Corporatocratic Police State nightmares I have when I ponder this nation's future.

[majikero]

There's also a significant minority that has close contact to relatives overseas. They may be a minority but there are still a lot of them.

If you mean politically, your basically offering the world to China, the direct competition of USA.

[Frumple]

I was thinking to myself the other day that if any country could afford to be isolationist, it would be the USA. Would you gentlemen agree with that assessment?

... in the sense that "No country can afford to be isolationist anymore", I guess. It would take a cultural shift more radical and sudden than pretty much anything we've seen in the history of mankind, and the economic/industrial/logistic shift that it would require would either take decades or completely collapse the country (there's not really a third option, there.), but the states are kinda' theoretically more capable than most countries of completely cutting off contact. In the sense that it'd still basically destroy the nation (unless the change was gradual over several decades, I guess.), but a century or so from now when the dust cleared, assuming no one walked in and walked over everything in the confusion, whatever was left would be able to start rebuilding using only resources within the border. Maybe.

Which is to say, if any country could afford to go isolationist, the US would be among those. And it can't. The isolationism ship has sailed.

[Strife26]

Now, what about Global disengagement? Could the US reasonably say that we're not going to even consider playing world policeman anymore, Syria cry to the UN until you get help, UN feel free to stay in New York, but you're never seeing another US flagged ship or plane?

[10ebbor10]

Now, what about Global disengagement? Could the US reasonably say that we're not going to even consider playing world policeman anymore, Syria cry to the UN until you get help, UN feel free to stay in New York, but you're never seeing another US flagged ship or plane?

Pretty easily, yes. After all, they signed the UN agreement. They'd just keep themselves to the letter of said agreements, rather than overriding it and performing illegal incursions.

[Frumple]

Backing off in that arena would be a lot more plausible. We need the trade and the economic connections, but less so need to hemorrhage money playing world cop. Ramping that back and letting the UN/whatever carry more of the weight there would... probably be a good idea? New age of (actual) cooperation and whatnot. Gods know there'd probably be public support for that sort of thing at this point. Maybe not full disengagement (yet), but stronger emphasis on coalition, pulling back military projection in general, etc., so forth, so on.

Least on the face of it, I'd probably support something like that, m'self. Have been to the extent my voting power lets me for a while now.

[Helgoland]

Now, what about Global disengagement? Could the US reasonably say that we're not going to even consider playing world policeman anymore, Syria cry to the UN until you get help, UN feel free to stay in New York, but you're never seeing another US flagged ship or plane?

Could do that, but then I'd currently be facing the choice of joining the SS or never in a billion years getting a good job.
Unless they'd already have T4'd me.

The US could start being isolationist. The thing is: You don't want it to.

[misko27]

And There is No Argument that chemical weapons are bad, the question is Who used them? to that I reply Cui bono?  ("to whose benefit?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono)

This is a incorrect definition, a common one alas, the correct definition is "What good would that do me?"
[REDACTED]

Anyway, the Senate proposal puts a 60 day limit with a 30 day extension on his activities, prohibits any ground forces boots other then special forces and rescue crews. Interestingly it would expand on Obama's "Just throw missiles at him", quite possibly to fixed-wing aircraft and extensive bombing; but prohibit regime change as a goal, only incidentally. A filibuster is expected, requiring 60 votes. It is unknown now how the vote will play out. A Syrian rebel general has endorsed Obama and his plan, and Russian lawmakers may be headed to the US to lobby against it. Oh, and people are enraged at Obama limiting the Foreign power ability of the President.

[palsch]

Ginsburg you badass.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will officiate at a same-sex wedding this weekend in what is believed to be a first for a member of the nation's highest court.

Ginsburg will officiate Saturday at the marriage of Kennedy Center President Michael Kaiser and John Roberts, a government economist.

The name of the man Kaiser is marrying is just icing on the cake.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Scalia is going to have a conniption when he hears about this.

[10ebbor10]

Now, what about Global disengagement? Could the US reasonably say that we're not going to even consider playing world policeman anymore, Syria cry to the UN until you get help, UN feel free to stay in New York, but you're never seeing another US flagged ship or plane?

Could do that, but then I'd currently be facing the choice of joining the SS or never in a billion years getting a good job.
Unless they'd already have T4'd me.

The US could start being isolationist. The thing is: You don't want it to.

Point is, the UN, NATO and EU didn't exist by that point. Such as situation is unlikely to repeat itself by this point. Then again, I don't want the US, or anyone to be isolationistic. I'd like them to work together, ideally through the UN, though other systems are good.

[palsch]

Scalia is going to have a conniption when he hears about this.

He likely knew. Him and Ginsberg tend to go to a lot of operas together. So many one is being written about them. Also in that article, the two riding an elephant on holiday in India together.

SCOTUS is a strange beast filled with stranger characters.

[Helgoland]

Have we had a UN reform thread yet?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There's really no point in having a UN reform thread until both China and Russia have significantly reformed.