Realitybites said:
Quote:
you completely miss the point. Cutting foreign aid out of the budget is not going to have any impact on the border whatsoever. Dems are not going to spend the savings to repel illegals at the border. All you accomplish is to reduce our influence abroad, which hastens the advance of a wide range of problems to our own borders, to include even more illegal aliens headed our way.
If you are giving out no aid, you have no leverage other than use of your military or use of sanctions (which hurts your own economy, too).
Isolationism sounds fine in theory, but it really sucks in practice.
The argument isn't for "isolationism" so much as it is for "regionalism". Just as we have no vested interest in what happens in Ukraine, we have a tremendous vested interest in what happens in Canada, Mexico, and the Panama Canal. Unfortunately, we gave the Canal away decades ago. It's easy to make the argument that what is going on in Canada under the Trudeau government is far worse for America than anything in Ukraine.
The reality is that we can no longer afford the role of Team America, Globocop. Your argument is one to protect the sacred cow in the budget that you and your daughter profit(ed) from. Everything must be cut - including social security and medicare - but as these are moral commitments to American citizens by governments that these citizens have paid for, these are the last to go.
No, you are arguing for isolationism.
As a simple matter of fact, we are a member of Nato and obligated to respond if/when/where an ally partner is attacked. So what happens in Ukraine is indeed a vested interest for us. Ukraine affects Poland, et al, as much as Mexico affects us, so what happens in either Mexico or Ukraine is equally important to all Nato members. Now, one can argue we have no business being in Nato, or Asia, for sure, but one would be making an explicitly isolationist argument that we have no interests in what happens to our largest trading partners, who without engagement-oriented policy from the USA would be dominated by larger regional powers who very much see America as a rival to destroy.
Same line of thinking applies to the "get us out of the UN" movement. Sure, UN is a waste of money and is all too often a tool for the true globalist nutjobs. But abandoning the institution removes our influence over it. It would quickly evolve into a relentlessly hostile anti-American entity dominated by Russia and China. You have to play the game or someone else will use the game to get all up in your business.
Foreign policy realism, buddy. It's Game of Thrones every day. Nobody is content with what they have. Everybody wants your stuff, and some are big enough to take it if they want tot. You are on your own to stop them. When you get in trouble, the only cavalry coming is the one you've already built.
