So, you're an isolationist?

Screw the rest of the world. If Germany takes over Europe, Russia takes over Asia and Scandinavia, Iran creates a caliphate in the Middle East (nuking Israel as they go) and Japan takes over the Pacific, we'll just let our allies fend for themselves?

Is it really that simple?

The examples you raise above would be valid up to the 20th Century.  However, in the age of nuclear weapons, nations that possess them have little to no risk of foreign invasion.  Hence, it is a laughable position to think some other country would commit suicide by invading the US.

As for the possibility of non-nuclear nations being invaded, that is still possible, but that is what the United Nations is for.  If I recall, Iraq thought it could invade Kuwait and it did; but I believe the UN saw that it's occupation of that nation would be a temporary one.

#1 - I never said the US would be invaded. I said our allies depend on us.

#2 - The UN was the follow-on to the Post-WWI League of Nations. The winners of the conflict basically exerted their will on the losers through that organization.  Without the massive military resources of the US, both the League and the UN had no teeth other than economic sanctions. The UN is allowing member states now who are on our enemies list. Expecting the UN to be the world police ignores their historical ineffectiveness since they came into existence.

The UN Security Council, hypothetically, could ignore the fighting in Syria saying there is no impact on member states, but intervene in an attack on Turkey.  That's not ensuring peace. That's policing your club members and letting the non-members fend for themselves.

The League of Nations failed to prevent WWII 20 years later.  I don't think the UN is any more capable of preventing war if a country is intent on starting one.  Iraq is an example.  The UN didn't fix the real problem -- the maniacal dictator, Saddam Hussein.  He remained in power to threaten security in the region until 9/11 gave the UN, lead by the US, justification to forcibly remove him.

But, that's the real issue; the US military is not being used as an agent for global peace or to protect its borders, but for imperial hegemonic domination.

The founding fathers were weary being drawn in wars that do not serve the nation's interest.  Washington and Eisenhower both were against wars whose purpose were outside of direct invasion.  Such wars and the garrisoning of the planet by the US today is fiscally unsustainable and actually is a major cause of the social inequities and infrastructure degredation that have allowed the Democrats to pursue their socialistic agenda today.

Dont know why you guys arguing. I'm going to McDonalds to enjoy a McTeri, a haupia pie and a caramel ice coffee. Today was a good day....

didn't have to shoot my HK

Isolationism doesn't work. We tried to follow that doctrine until Japan attacked.

Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was not because of its isolationist's policy, but because Roosevelt wanted to get involved into WWII.  In fact, according to Robert Stinnett's book, "Day of Deceit", it was FDR's policy of going to war with Japan; hence, FDR knew and allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to occur.


Like it or not, we have interests around the globe, and some of those interests are because we have alliances.

Who determines that?

The American who is working his or her tail off on Main Street, or the US multinational corporations on Wall Street?


We have the size military we have, not to be imperialistic, but because Russia and China have been real threats for more than half a century. as they grew their military strength, we also needed to grow ours.

After the Cold War, the US had and still has the largest military in the whole World.  The US spends more on its military machine than Russia and China combined.  In looking at these expenditures, it is very hard to see Russia and China being the aggressors on this planet, when it is the US that spends more on its armed forces and has participated in more illegal invasions of other sovereign countries than Russia or China during the last 20 years.


It's difficult to argue reducing our military strength when history proves the guy on top of the hill is always going to be challenged.  We are, and need to stay, on top.

Well, got some news for you.

Imperial Rome, the Mongol Empire, and the British all believed and behaved similarly like the US, since the US left its isolationist foreign policies; and all those empires collapsed without one tear from the rest of the planet when they did.

However, in the age of nuclear weapons, nations that possess them have little to no risk of foreign invasion.  Hence, it is a laughable position to think some other country would commit suicide by invading the US..

good thing we have those ICBM silos on Oahu to prevent countries from invading...

good thing we have those ICBM silos on Oahu to prevent countries from invading...

But, but, but they don’t exist...

I’m gonna say it to myself like 10-11 times. Then it will make it true.

What I think about those silos is irrelevant, however, it is true that the very existence of those strategic silos makes the Hawaiian Islands a viable target for adversaries of the US imperial army. But like those droids you seek. What droids? Horseshit. I saw droids and the Apple car will prove it.

But, but, but they don’t exist...

I’m gonna say it to myself like 10-11 times. Then it will make it true.

good thing we have those ICBM silos on Oahu to prevent countries from invading...

SNIP

"fairly bad"- is that better or worse than "kinda awful"?