Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Inaccurate

The US played 'policeman' in the Philippines, Cuba, China, and throughout Central America prior to WW2.

We have spent trillions of dollars and almost a million lives since 1917.

Meanwhile other countries throughout the world magically avoid the excitement of a 9-11 attack.

Strange how that happens when you focus on your own affairs.

---

And communists didn't meddle?

What major countries have avoided Muslim terrorist attacks?

---

Really think our legions of permanently crippled servicemen care who is a 'major' country in the eyes of internet posters ?

We are being led into still more wars.


THINK !


Vote for a different approach.

---

I'm all for a good debate on foreign policy.

What I'll counter is this odd "blame America" strain.

---

"I like a good debate, but I don't understand why the other side gets to talk."

---

What?

Since when is a counter argument tantamount to not understanding why the other side gets to talk?

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Inaccurate

The US played 'policeman' in the Philippines, Cuba, China, and throughout Central America prior to WW2.

We have spent trillions of dollars and almost a million lives since 1917.

Meanwhile other countries throughout the world magically avoid the excitement of a 9-11 attack.

Strange how that happens when you focus on your own affairs.

---

How many U.S. lives military and otherwise have been lost in the last 50 years? Then compare that to every 50 year increment prior to that. It would appear that modern day "war mongering" or "world policing" isn't really as dangerous as you seem to draw it out as.

---

With respect …..

There are dozens of countries throughout the world who never needed to sacrifice thousands of lives and trillions of dollars for the minimal results we have experienced since 1900.

Our foreign policy has been a continual disaster and the worst is yet to come under a Harris administration.

Clueless as Trump is in many areas, his foreign policy instincts are better than most.

---

We are a global economic and military powerhouse by a huge multiple compared to 1900. Literally a class of one. I'm not naive to the internal and existential threats we face today in order to maintain that, but with all due respect, we aren't here without our efforts to exert might across the globe.

---

Possibly i have acquired a more cautious approach.

---

I can respect and understand that even if I don't always agree with it.

---

Thanks

Same here.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Inaccurate

The US played 'policeman' in the Philippines, Cuba, China, and throughout Central America prior to WW2.

We have spent trillions of dollars and almost a million lives since 1917.

Meanwhile other countries throughout the world magically avoid the excitement of a 9-11 attack.

Strange how that happens when you focus on your own affairs.

---

How many U.S. lives military and otherwise have been lost in the last 50 years? Then compare that to every 50 year increment prior to that. It would appear that modern day "war mongering" or "world policing" isn't really as dangerous as you seem to draw it out as.

---

Not as dangerous if you are the lone hyper power military/economic giant on earth.

Goat herders vs U.S. marines will billions in tech was always going to be a one sided casualty event.

But to the thousands of dead Americans and their families it's still bad.

(And the 1 million dead Iraqis and millions displaced)

Not to mention in most cases the world policing has just not worked well.

The one world policing duty the USA can do well….that costs little on lives…and that is of great help to the world is keeping the ocean shipping lanes open.

That is world policing we do well and that benefits everyone

---

The objective is to become the hyper power..

---

Leaving aside I'm not sure how that fits into the Founders ideals of being a free Republic with limited government….

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." -Madison

The big problem is not getting there…it's not blundering into crises that destroy it

---

Madison was speaking at a time where fighting for freedom was a nascent ideal. Most wars of the era were for Monarchical power.

And I agree that the key is to not blunder it away.

---

Fighting for freedom is a talking point, not an ideal. Madison would be overcome with laughter to hear that we're fighting for freedom in the Middle East, Europe, or anywhere else.

---

Freedom is won after the wars, not because of them. That's why fighting campaigns succeed, and nation builds fail.

---

And yet you have still not fundamental grasped that the DC ruling class is NOT fighting for freedom around the world.

It's trying to nation build and spread liberal-leftists social values

And that is why it fails…and will continue to fail

You can't turn Baghdad into Berkeley

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Inaccurate

The US played 'policeman' in the Philippines, Cuba, China, and throughout Central America prior to WW2.

We have spent trillions of dollars and almost a million lives since 1917.

Meanwhile other countries throughout the world magically avoid the excitement of a 9-11 attack.

Strange how that happens when you focus on your own affairs.

---

Your a n isolationist, get it.

---

Your a person who constantly throws that accusation out constantly

We get it

It's the card in your back pocket you always play.

"Muh World War II!"

---

No there are realities of the world where we don't have the luxury of just taking our ball and going home. It may make you feel better, but no one else is standing up to the Putin's and Xi's of the world.

There is more going on than your inconvenience or pocket book. Ostrich all you like. But the reason you had the opportunity for big pay checks and cheap prices was Americas role as policeman. You are experiencing some of what awaits if we don't police the world right now. When America is weak or withdrawn it goes to ****

---

We are in a military alliance network with more than 50 counties across the globe.

We have military bases all over the planet.

What the heck are you talking about "taking our ball and going home"?

No one has ever said we should withdraw from the whole world…something probably impossible for us even to do now….we argue against more unnecessary sand box wars in bum-f-Istan

[The USA has at least 750 military bases installed in 80 countries around the world. 173,000 troops are deployed in at least 159 countries]





https://ubique.americangeo.org/map-of-the-week/map-of-the-week-u-s-military-bases-around-the-world/

---

Exactly, the isolationist idea that we can become Switzerland or some Nation that is not involved is an unrealistic expectation..

---

And respectfully….no one is advocating for that

Americans want less foreign adventurism and regime change wars (Iraq) and less pricey proxy wars that could spin out of control (ukriane)

No one in America wants "isolationism"

---

There are some on this Board. They specifically said that Switzerland and others have no one attack them, don't spend money and don't send their people to die in foreign wars.

---

You bet your ass. Switzerland has done extremely well avoiding the **** shows.

Honestly, haven't you ever noticed ?

Those who have seen the corpses stack up, don't want to be used in another avoidable war ever again.

Whereas those who have never had so much as a broken finger and know they are insulated from seeing combat…….are ALWAYS the biggest Rambo's in any room.

Think I am wrong ?

Just re institute the DRAFT and see what happens.

---

And why is that? You prepared for the US to allow the money laundering and banking rules of Switzerland. You think they don't get included because they were nice? The Nazis just said, the Swiss don't want to get involved leave them alone? Why? Are the Swiss left alone? Because every thing needs some place to hide their money for when things go bad, which they always do. Either that or it's the fondue.

Geez, there is a price always. What do you want to pay? What side of the ledger do you want to be?

I do agree on the draft. I am all for mandatory 2 year enlisted service. No officer shot, PFC. See how the world looks.

Please review your comments, and try again.

The topic is the obvious advantages in staying out of foreign wars.

The attitude of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and a host of founding fathers.


BTW the nazis didn't invade Switzerland because the Swiss threatened to blow up the vital rail road tunnels through the Alps.

In addition even Hitler needed a neutral country for various back channel communications.

Of course Swiss banking realities didn't hurt either.

KaiBear said:

---

Please review your comments, and try again.

The topic is the obvious advantages in staying out of foreign wars.

The attitude of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and a host of founding fathers.


BTW the nazis didn't invade Switzerland because the Swiss threatened to blow up the vital rail road tunnels through the Alps.

In addition even Hitler needed a neutral country for various back channel communications.

Of course Swiss banking realities didn't hurt either.

---

You agreed with what I said. The Swiss pay a price for their neutrality, they shelter every scumbag thugs money no questions asked. Being Hitlers backroom channel? As a Christian you want that?

It was much easier in the 1700s to stay out, especially when you didn't add anything. The US had no money, no military and barely holding on. So yeah, keep your head down. In today's world being at the table is better than not. Too many others that would take advantage.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

It's still about survival for the Jews. They are an existential crisis fighting a war against barbaric terrorists who want them all dead. Too many posters in this forum dismiss or forget that fact. What's amazing is how some Israeli's seem to forget that as well. Although I'm I don't believe the propaganda from the antisemitic press on anything, particularly when it comes to numbers of self-hating Jews.

---

Over 550 Lebanese have been killed in the last 48 hours by indiscriminate Israeli air attacks.

What about their survival ?

Why are the lives of Israeli children more precious than Lebanese ?

---

Maybe the Lebanese should stop putting Hezbollah missiles in civilian houses. Could help. Sort of like Ukraine, Putin stops invading, no more attacks on Russia. Lebanon stops allowing missiles to be fired, no more missiles coming in Lebanon.

Or, they can leave. That's right Hezbollah won't let them, but its the IDF fault.

You were in the military, you give an evacuation order, give time to leave and then go forward. What should the IDF do? Just let them fire missiles into Israel? They have cruise missiles in houses.

---

A dead child, is a dead child, regardless if it's Israeli, Lebanese, Russian, Ukrainian, Palestinian, Kuwaitis, Iraqi or American.

With its nuclear weapons, armor and overwhelming air superiority; Israel feels immune to the consequences of its indiscriminate air attacks against a weak neighbor.

Hope Turkey finally brings some reality to the Zionists. Only then is there a real chance for a negotiated settlement.

Especially since our DC politicians have been bought and paid for by the Zionist lobbyists for decades.

The US needs to stop funding these butcheries. Period.
The US needs to stop using our poor and working class overseas to continue to bleed on behalf of our elites.


WE ARE BEING MANIPULATED.

---

Might be right.

You have a better shot at peace is Israel wins than Hezbellan or Hamas. They will just find someone else to hate and kill. It is what they do.

---

They don't hate Swedes, Swiss, Hungarians, or anyone in Central or South America.

Maybe, just maybe it's because none of those countries launch air strikes throughout the Middle East periodically.

We simply need to be like a host of other countries and stop attempting to be the worlds policeman.

---

Well, for 80 years it worked. Someone had to do it and the US as the Policemen limited the wars to regional types.

Are we ready for what happens when the US as cop isn't there? When we are relying on Putin and Xi's sense of fairness and human rights?

Not saying you are wrong, just that there are ramifications either way.

---

WW2

500,000 dead US servicemen

Result : Japan, Germany and Italy crushed. Millions dead.

Soviet Union rules Eastern Europe for over 50 years.
China goes communist


Korean War

38,000 US servicemen killed

Result : Mao shows the rest of the Far East the US can be beaten in a conventional war. China begins its journey towards dominance.

Vietnam War

53,000 US servicemen dead. Hundreds of thousands wounded.
Humiliation for the United States worldwide. American society begins its crumbling.

First Iraqi War. Bush and the US Army kicks ass. Follows UN mandate. Liberates Kuwait. Protects western oil nerfs.

2nd Iraqi War. US Army kicks ass again. Conquers Iraqi in one of the most tactically brilliant displays since the Mexican War.
US politicians then lose the peace. Iran power grows in the vacuum.



Meanwhile

9-11 over 3000 US civilians dead

---

All the wars you describe were regional and limited. They occurred because the US and our allies were in position to keep it to a regional war and not go through WW1 or WW2 again.

---

We avoided another world war because we understood our opponents and respected their security interests. Today that's considered "anti-American."

---

We both chose to fight proxy wars and not direct wars.

---

It's more than that. We cooperated on arms control instead of wantonly renouncing treaties. We recognized indivisible security instead of taking an absolute (and absolutely hypocritical) stand on national sovereignty. For the most part we didn't threaten the Russian homeland or the Russian regime. In many ways we were less adversarial during the Cold War than we have been since.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Inaccurate

The US played 'policeman' in the Philippines, Cuba, China, and throughout Central America prior to WW2.

We have spent trillions of dollars and almost a million lives since 1917.

Meanwhile other countries throughout the world magically avoid the excitement of a 9-11 attack.

Strange how that happens when you focus on your own affairs.

---

And communists didn't meddle?

What major countries have avoided Muslim terrorist attacks?

---

Really think our legions of permanently crippled servicemen care who is a 'major' country in the eyes of internet posters ?

We are being led into still more wars.


THINK !


Vote for a different approach.

---

I'm all for a good debate on foreign policy.

What I'll counter is this odd "blame America" strain.

---

"I like a good debate, but I don't understand why the other side gets to talk."

---

What?

Since when is a counter argument tantamount to not understanding why the other side gets to talk?

---

It sounded like you were saying the so-called "blame America" argument isn't a legitimate part of the debate. My mistake if not.

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Please review your comments, and try again.

The topic is the obvious advantages in staying out of foreign wars.

The attitude of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and a host of founding fathers.


BTW the nazis didn't invade Switzerland because the Swiss threatened to blow up the vital rail road tunnels through the Alps.

In addition even Hitler needed a neutral country for various back channel communications.

Of course Swiss banking realities didn't hurt either.

---

You agreed with what I said. The Swiss pay a price for their neutrality, they shelter every scumbag thugs money no questions asked. Being Hitlers backroom channel? As a Christian you want that?

It was much easier in the 1700s to stay out, especially when you didn't add anything. The US had no money, no military and barely holding on. So yeah, keep your head down. In today's world being at the table is better than not. Too many others that would take advantage.

---

LOL


Roosevelt used Swiss neutrality at least as much as Hitler.
Especially in regards to the 70 US bomber crews who opted to land in Switzerland rather than end up in a German POW camp.

Good grief the Swiss don't pay a 'price ' from their neutrality…..they benefit from it both economically and culturally.

BTW US banks close at a far higher incidence than Swiss banks.
Which are regarded as among the strongest in the world.

In these times of undetectable 'boomer' submarines, each capable of launching 60 hydrogen bombs…….setting at the table merely marks you, your family and your entire community for vaporization in under 40 minutes.


But not one family in Uruguay ( for one example ) feels threatened in the least .

Guess why ?

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Inaccurate

The US played 'policeman' in the Philippines, Cuba, China, and throughout Central America prior to WW2.

We have spent trillions of dollars and almost a million lives since 1917.

Meanwhile other countries throughout the world magically avoid the excitement of a 9-11 attack.

Strange how that happens when you focus on your own affairs.

---

How many U.S. lives military and otherwise have been lost in the last 50 years? Then compare that to every 50 year increment prior to that. It would appear that modern day "war mongering" or "world policing" isn't really as dangerous as you seem to draw it out as.

---

Not as dangerous if you are the lone hyper power military/economic giant on earth.

Goat herders vs U.S. marines will billions in tech was always going to be a one sided casualty event.

But to the thousands of dead Americans and their families it's still bad.

(And the 1 million dead Iraqis and millions displaced)

Not to mention in most cases the world policing has just not worked well.

The one world policing duty the USA can do well….that costs little on lives…and that is of great help to the world is keeping the ocean shipping lanes open.

That is world policing we do well and that benefits everyone

---

The objective is to become the hyper power..

---

Leaving aside I'm not sure how that fits into the Founders ideals of being a free Republic with limited government….

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." -Madison

The big problem is not getting there…it's not blundering into crises that destroy it

---

Madison was speaking at a time where fighting for freedom was a nascent ideal. Most wars of the era were for Monarchical power.

And I agree that the key is to not blunder it away.

---

Fighting for freedom is a talking point, not an ideal. Madison would be overcome with laughter to hear that we're fighting for freedom in the Middle East, Europe, or anywhere else.

---

Freedom is won after the wars, not because of them. That's why fighting campaigns succeed, and nation builds fail.

---

And yet you have still not fundamental grasped that the DC ruling class is NOT fighting for freedom around the world.

It's trying to nation build and spread liberal-leftists social values

And that is why it fails…and will continue to fail

You can't turn Baghdad into Berkeley

---

I grasp a lot more than you give me credit for, including the ability to bifurcate political/ideological concerns, and the ground realities of promoting and maintaining global economic and military power that all of us, despite our complaints, benefit from. I'll let you in on a secret. You can't export Berkley ideals with butter any more than you can with guns. It's just easier to get the speech and photo ops in without bullets flying. Once the ceremonies are finished, the local leaders make those choices ultimately, and 99% of the time the occasional dust up with a war of words fades off into the sunset. Politicians love to have venues to grandstand, when in reality we keep quiet with the vast majority of our allies.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

It's still about survival for the Jews. They are an existential crisis fighting a war against barbaric terrorists who want them all dead. Too many posters in this forum dismiss or forget that fact. What's amazing is how some Israeli's seem to forget that as well. Although I'm I don't believe the propaganda from the antisemitic press on anything, particularly when it comes to numbers of self-hating Jews.

---

Over 550 Lebanese have been killed in the last 48 hours by indiscriminate Israeli air attacks.

What about their survival ?

Why are the lives of Israeli children more precious than Lebanese ?

---

Maybe the Lebanese should stop putting Hezbollah missiles in civilian houses. Could help. Sort of like Ukraine, Putin stops invading, no more attacks on Russia. Lebanon stops allowing missiles to be fired, no more missiles coming in Lebanon.

Or, they can leave. That's right Hezbollah won't let them, but its the IDF fault.

You were in the military, you give an evacuation order, give time to leave and then go forward. What should the IDF do? Just let them fire missiles into Israel? They have cruise missiles in houses.

---

A dead child, is a dead child, regardless if it's Israeli, Lebanese, Russian, Ukrainian, Palestinian, Kuwaitis, Iraqi or American.

With its nuclear weapons, armor and overwhelming air superiority; Israel feels immune to the consequences of its indiscriminate air attacks against a weak neighbor.

Hope Turkey finally brings some reality to the Zionists. Only then is there a real chance for a negotiated settlement.

Especially since our DC politicians have been bought and paid for by the Zionist lobbyists for decades.

The US needs to stop funding these butcheries. Period.
The US needs to stop using our poor and working class overseas to continue to bleed on behalf of our elites.


WE ARE BEING MANIPULATED.

---

Might be right.

You have a better shot at peace is Israel wins than Hezbellan or Hamas. They will just find someone else to hate and kill. It is what they do.

---

They don't hate Swedes, Swiss, Hungarians, or anyone in Central or South America.

Maybe, just maybe it's because none of those countries launch air strikes throughout the Middle East periodically.

We simply need to be like a host of other countries and stop attempting to be the worlds policeman.

---

Well, for 80 years it worked. Someone had to do it and the US as the Policemen limited the wars to regional types.

Are we ready for what happens when the US as cop isn't there? When we are relying on Putin and Xi's sense of fairness and human rights?

Not saying you are wrong, just that there are ramifications either way.

---

WW2

500,000 dead US servicemen

Result : Japan, Germany and Italy crushed. Millions dead.

Soviet Union rules Eastern Europe for over 50 years.
China goes communist


Korean War

38,000 US servicemen killed

Result : Mao shows the rest of the Far East the US can be beaten in a conventional war. China begins its journey towards dominance.

Vietnam War

53,000 US servicemen dead. Hundreds of thousands wounded.
Humiliation for the United States worldwide. American society begins its crumbling.

First Iraqi War. Bush and the US Army kicks ass. Follows UN mandate. Liberates Kuwait. Protects western oil nerfs.

2nd Iraqi War. US Army kicks ass again. Conquers Iraqi in one of the most tactically brilliant displays since the Mexican War.
US politicians then lose the peace. Iran power grows in the vacuum.



Meanwhile

9-11 over 3000 US civilians dead

---

All the wars you describe were regional and limited. They occurred because the US and our allies were in position to keep it to a regional war and not go through WW1 or WW2 again.

---

We avoided another world war because we understood our opponents and respected their security interests. Today that's considered "anti-American."

---

We both chose to fight proxy wars and not direct wars.

---

It's more than that. We cooperated on arms control instead of wantonly renouncing treaties. We recognized indivisible security instead of taking an absolute (and absolutely hypocritical) stand on national sovereignty. For the most part we didn't threaten the Russian homeland or the Russian regime. In many ways we were less adversarial during the Cold War than we have been since.

---

I'm sorry Sam, but I really think you have rewritten history in your head over the Ukraine conflict. START was the first actual arms reduction treaty, and it was signed in 1991 at the very end of the Cold War. SALTs were just talks and nothing else.

Our wanton efforts in Eastern Europe were the coup de gras on the Soviet Union. There was no "Kumbaya" between the powers until maybe the very end, when everyone knew what was coming. I remember when the made for TV movie "The Day After", which symbolized the real domestic fear of Soviet nuclear attack was broadcast maybe 6 years before the Berlin Wall fell. Reagan was a hard core cold warrior and many feared had brought us to the brink of real direct conflict, especially during his first term. Much more so than any puerile threat Putin is throwing out there.

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Please review your comments, and try again.

The topic is the obvious advantages in staying out of foreign wars.

The attitude of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and a host of founding fathers.


BTW the nazis didn't invade Switzerland because the Swiss threatened to blow up the vital rail road tunnels through the Alps.

In addition even Hitler needed a neutral country for various back channel communications.

Of course Swiss banking realities didn't hurt either.

---

You agreed with what I said. The Swiss pay a price for their neutrality, they shelter every scumbag thugs money no questions asked. Being Hitlers backroom channel? As a Christian you want that?

It was much easier in the 1700s to stay out, especially when you didn't add anything. The US had no money, no military and barely holding on. So yeah, keep your head down. In today's world being at the table is better than not. Too many others that would take advantage.

---

LOL


Roosevelt used Swiss neutrality at least as much as Hitler.
Especially in regards to the 70 US bomber crews who opted to land in Switzerland rather than end up in a German POW camp.

Good grief the Swiss don't pay a 'price ' from their neutrality…..they benefit from it both economically and culturally.

BTW US banks close at a far higher incidence than Swiss banks.
Which are regarded as among the strongest in the world.

In these times of undetectable 'boomer' submarines, each capable of launching 60 hydrogen bombs…….setting at the table merely marks you, your family and your entire community for vaporization in under 40 minutes.


But not one family in Uruguay ( for one example ) feels threatened in the least .

Guess why ?

---

Because it is a poor, weak country surrounded by the same. If they had diamond mines and a way to defend them, they would be worried.

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Please review your comments, and try again.

The topic is the obvious advantages in staying out of foreign wars.

The attitude of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and a host of founding fathers.


BTW the nazis didn't invade Switzerland because the Swiss threatened to blow up the vital rail road tunnels through the Alps.

In addition even Hitler needed a neutral country for various back channel communications.

Of course Swiss banking realities didn't hurt either.

---

You agreed with what I said. The Swiss pay a price for their neutrality, they shelter every scumbag thugs money no questions asked. Being Hitlers backroom channel? As a Christian you want that?

It was much easier in the 1700s to stay out, especially when you didn't add anything. The US had no money, no military and barely holding on. So yeah, keep your head down. In today's world being at the table is better than not. Too many others that would take advantage.

---

LOL


Roosevelt used Swiss neutrality at least as much as Hitler.
Especially in regards to the 70 US bomber crews who opted to land in Switzerland rather than end up in a German POW camp.

Good grief the Swiss don't pay a 'price ' from their neutrality…..they benefit from it both economically and culturally.

BTW US banks close at a far higher incidence than Swiss banks.
Which are regarded as among the strongest in the world.

In these times of undetectable 'boomer' submarines, each capable of launching 60 hydrogen bombs…….setting at the table merely marks you, your family and your entire community for vaporization in under 40 minutes.


But not one family in Uruguay ( for one example ) feels threatened in the least .

Guess why ?

---

The Swiss are good with their decisions. They also don't claim to take the moral high ground or to be based on Christian ideals. I agree that the US and its citizens use Swiss services, no issues. But, there is a reason for their neutrality being allowed.

You think these Nations not feeling threatened enjoy that on their own? Or, does the fact that the US-China balance out allow them to have those more peaceful outlooks? If the US ceased balancing, would China let Uruguay just be if China wanted a port or resources? Or, just presence in the West?

Isn't Uruguay part of the Chinese Belt & Roads program? I think as of 2018. So, are they really in control of their nation?

But, we owe China as well. So... It will make your hear hurt plotting it out.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Inaccurate

The US played 'policeman' in the Philippines, Cuba, China, and throughout Central America prior to WW2.

We have spent trillions of dollars and almost a million lives since 1917.

Meanwhile other countries throughout the world magically avoid the excitement of a 9-11 attack.

Strange how that happens when you focus on your own affairs.

---

And communists didn't meddle?

What major countries have avoided Muslim terrorist attacks?

---

Really think our legions of permanently crippled servicemen care who is a 'major' country in the eyes of internet posters ?

We are being led into still more wars.


THINK !


Vote for a different approach.

---

I'm all for a good debate on foreign policy.

What I'll counter is this odd "blame America" strain.

---

"I like a good debate, but I don't understand why the other side gets to talk."

---

What?

Since when is a counter argument tantamount to not understanding why the other side gets to talk?

---

It sounded like you were saying the so-called "blame America" argument isn't a legitimate part of the debate. My mistake if not.

---

Fair enough. Definitely part of the debate.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

It's still about survival for the Jews. They are an existential crisis fighting a war against barbaric terrorists who want them all dead. Too many posters in this forum dismiss or forget that fact. What's amazing is how some Israeli's seem to forget that as well. Although I'm I don't believe the propaganda from the antisemitic press on anything, particularly when it comes to numbers of self-hating Jews.

---

Over 550 Lebanese have been killed in the last 48 hours by indiscriminate Israeli air attacks.

What about their survival ?

Why are the lives of Israeli children more precious than Lebanese ?

---

Maybe the Lebanese should stop putting Hezbollah missiles in civilian houses. Could help. Sort of like Ukraine, Putin stops invading, no more attacks on Russia. Lebanon stops allowing missiles to be fired, no more missiles coming in Lebanon.

Or, they can leave. That's right Hezbollah won't let them, but its the IDF fault.

You were in the military, you give an evacuation order, give time to leave and then go forward. What should the IDF do? Just let them fire missiles into Israel? They have cruise missiles in houses.

---

A dead child, is a dead child, regardless if it's Israeli, Lebanese, Russian, Ukrainian, Palestinian, Kuwaitis, Iraqi or American.

With its nuclear weapons, armor and overwhelming air superiority; Israel feels immune to the consequences of its indiscriminate air attacks against a weak neighbor.

Hope Turkey finally brings some reality to the Zionists. Only then is there a real chance for a negotiated settlement.

Especially since our DC politicians have been bought and paid for by the Zionist lobbyists for decades.

The US needs to stop funding these butcheries. Period.
The US needs to stop using our poor and working class overseas to continue to bleed on behalf of our elites.


WE ARE BEING MANIPULATED.

---

Might be right.

You have a better shot at peace is Israel wins than Hezbellan or Hamas. They will just find someone else to hate and kill. It is what they do.

---

They don't hate Swedes, Swiss, Hungarians, or anyone in Central or South America.

Maybe, just maybe it's because none of those countries launch air strikes throughout the Middle East periodically.

We simply need to be like a host of other countries and stop attempting to be the worlds policeman.

---

Well, for 80 years it worked. Someone had to do it and the US as the Policemen limited the wars to regional types.

Are we ready for what happens when the US as cop isn't there? When we are relying on Putin and Xi's sense of fairness and human rights?

Not saying you are wrong, just that there are ramifications either way.

---

WW2

500,000 dead US servicemen

Result : Japan, Germany and Italy crushed. Millions dead.

Soviet Union rules Eastern Europe for over 50 years.
China goes communist


Korean War

38,000 US servicemen killed

Result : Mao shows the rest of the Far East the US can be beaten in a conventional war. China begins its journey towards dominance.

Vietnam War

53,000 US servicemen dead. Hundreds of thousands wounded.
Humiliation for the United States worldwide. American society begins its crumbling.

First Iraqi War. Bush and the US Army kicks ass. Follows UN mandate. Liberates Kuwait. Protects western oil nerfs.

2nd Iraqi War. US Army kicks ass again. Conquers Iraqi in one of the most tactically brilliant displays since the Mexican War.
US politicians then lose the peace. Iran power grows in the vacuum.



Meanwhile

9-11 over 3000 US civilians dead

---

All the wars you describe were regional and limited. They occurred because the US and our allies were in position to keep it to a regional war and not go through WW1 or WW2 again.

---

We avoided another world war because we understood our opponents and respected their security interests. Today that's considered "anti-American."

---

We both chose to fight proxy wars and not direct wars.

---

It's more than that. We cooperated on arms control instead of wantonly renouncing treaties. We recognized indivisible security instead of taking an absolute (and absolutely hypocritical) stand on national sovereignty. For the most part we didn't threaten the Russian homeland or the Russian regime. In many ways we were less adversarial during the Cold War than we have been since.

---

I'm sorry Sam, but I really think you have rewritten history in your head over the Ukraine conflict. START was the first actual arms reduction treaty, and it was signed in 1991 at the very end of the Cold War. SALTs were just talks and nothing else.

Our wanton efforts in Eastern Europe were the coup de gras on the Soviet Union. There was no "Kumbaya" between the powers until maybe the very end, when everyone knew what was coming. I remember when the made for TV movie "The Day After", which symbolized the real domestic fear of Soviet nuclear attack was broadcast maybe 6 years before the Berlin Wall fell. Reagan was a hard core cold warrior and many feared had brought us to the brink of real direct conflict, especially during his first term. Much more so than any puerile threat Putin is throwing out there.

---

ABM signed in 1972. INF signed in 1987. Open Skies initiated by GHW Bush in 1989, signed in 1992. All abrogated as we pushed nuclear-capable missiles into Romania and Poland.

Your second paragraph is an example of rewriting history. It's one of the most crucial errors in this entire debate.

Quote:

---

The tragedy of American foreign policy is that the leaders and national security managers who led us into these debacles or helped sell them to the public remain in charge of American foreign policy and are guardians of the conventional wisdom. Instead of listening to those who got it right, we seem condemned to follow those who got it wrong over and over again.

That is why the voice of 95-year-old Jack Matlock is so important -- and deserves far more attention. Ambassador Matlock, a career foreign service officer, served as ambassador to the USSR under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, working with them to negotiate the end of the Cold War. Today, he cuts through the propaganda and the hype and offers a compelling map of the roads not taken.

The end of the Cold War, Matlock notes, came from diplomatic negotiations -- not from the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, the subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union was seen by the Bush administration as a setback for US policy. Reagan and Bush negotiated the end of the Soviet empire, and the unification of Germany. They reassured Soviet leader Gorbachev that if he agreed not to intervene in Eastern Europe, the United States (read NATO) would not take advantage.

While the US worked to gain independence for the Baltic Republics, the Bush administration thought Georgia and Ukraine would fare better in a voluntary association with the Soviet Union. President Bush proclaimed a goal of a "Europe whole and free." Gorbachev spoke of "our common European home," and welcomed representatives of Eastern European governments that had thrown out their communist rulers.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/how-former-ambassador-jack-matlock-corrects-the-record-on-american-foreign-policy/

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

It's still about survival for the Jews. They are an existential crisis fighting a war against barbaric terrorists who want them all dead. Too many posters in this forum dismiss or forget that fact. What's amazing is how some Israeli's seem to forget that as well. Although I'm I don't believe the propaganda from the antisemitic press on anything, particularly when it comes to numbers of self-hating Jews.

---

Over 550 Lebanese have been killed in the last 48 hours by indiscriminate Israeli air attacks.

What about their survival ?

Why are the lives of Israeli children more precious than Lebanese ?

---

Maybe the Lebanese should stop putting Hezbollah missiles in civilian houses. Could help. Sort of like Ukraine, Putin stops invading, no more attacks on Russia. Lebanon stops allowing missiles to be fired, no more missiles coming in Lebanon.

Or, they can leave. That's right Hezbollah won't let them, but its the IDF fault.

You were in the military, you give an evacuation order, give time to leave and then go forward. What should the IDF do? Just let them fire missiles into Israel? They have cruise missiles in houses.

---

A dead child, is a dead child, regardless if it's Israeli, Lebanese, Russian, Ukrainian, Palestinian, Kuwaitis, Iraqi or American.

With its nuclear weapons, armor and overwhelming air superiority; Israel feels immune to the consequences of its indiscriminate air attacks against a weak neighbor.

Hope Turkey finally brings some reality to the Zionists. Only then is there a real chance for a negotiated settlement.

Especially since our DC politicians have been bought and paid for by the Zionist lobbyists for decades.

The US needs to stop funding these butcheries. Period.
The US needs to stop using our poor and working class overseas to continue to bleed on behalf of our elites.


WE ARE BEING MANIPULATED.

---

Might be right.

You have a better shot at peace is Israel wins than Hezbellan or Hamas. They will just find someone else to hate and kill. It is what they do.

---

They don't hate Swedes, Swiss, Hungarians, or anyone in Central or South America.

Maybe, just maybe it's because none of those countries launch air strikes throughout the Middle East periodically.

We simply need to be like a host of other countries and stop attempting to be the worlds policeman.

---

Well, for 80 years it worked. Someone had to do it and the US as the Policemen limited the wars to regional types.

Are we ready for what happens when the US as cop isn't there? When we are relying on Putin and Xi's sense of fairness and human rights?

Not saying you are wrong, just that there are ramifications either way.

---

WW2

500,000 dead US servicemen

Result : Japan, Germany and Italy crushed. Millions dead.

Soviet Union rules Eastern Europe for over 50 years.
China goes communist


Korean War

38,000 US servicemen killed

Result : Mao shows the rest of the Far East the US can be beaten in a conventional war. China begins its journey towards dominance.

Vietnam War

53,000 US servicemen dead. Hundreds of thousands wounded.
Humiliation for the United States worldwide. American society begins its crumbling.

First Iraqi War. Bush and the US Army kicks ass. Follows UN mandate. Liberates Kuwait. Protects western oil nerfs.

2nd Iraqi War. US Army kicks ass again. Conquers Iraqi in one of the most tactically brilliant displays since the Mexican War.
US politicians then lose the peace. Iran power grows in the vacuum.



Meanwhile

9-11 over 3000 US civilians dead

---

All the wars you describe were regional and limited. They occurred because the US and our allies were in position to keep it to a regional war and not go through WW1 or WW2 again.

---

We avoided another world war because we understood our opponents and respected their security interests. Today that's considered "anti-American."

---

We both chose to fight proxy wars and not direct wars.

---

It's more than that. We cooperated on arms control instead of wantonly renouncing treaties. We recognized indivisible security instead of taking an absolute (and absolutely hypocritical) stand on national sovereignty. For the most part we didn't threaten the Russian homeland or the Russian regime. In many ways we were less adversarial during the Cold War than we have been since.

---

I'm sorry Sam, but I really think you have rewritten history in your head over the Ukraine conflict. START was the first actual arms reduction treaty, and it was signed in 1991 at the very end of the Cold War. SALTs were just talks and nothing else.

Our wanton efforts in Eastern Europe were the coup de gras on the Soviet Union. There was no "Kumbaya" between the powers until maybe the very end, when everyone knew what was coming. I remember when the made for TV movie "The Day After", which symbolized the real domestic fear of Soviet nuclear attack was broadcast maybe 6 years before the Berlin Wall fell. Reagan was a hard core cold warrior and many feared had brought us to the brink of real direct conflict, especially during his first term. Much more so than any puerile threat Putin is throwing out there.

---

ABM signed in 1972. INF signed in 1987. Open Skies initiated by GHW Bush in 1989, signed in 1992. All abrogated as we pushed nuclear-capable missiles into Romania and Poland.

Your second paragraph is an example of rewriting history. It's one of the most crucial errors in this entire debate.

Quote:

---

The tragedy of American foreign policy is that the leaders and national security managers who led us into these debacles or helped sell them to the public remain in charge of American foreign policy and are guardians of the conventional wisdom. Instead of listening to those who got it right, we seem condemned to follow those who got it wrong over and over again.

That is why the voice of 95-year-old Jack Matlock is so important -- and deserves far more attention. Ambassador Matlock, a career foreign service officer, served as ambassador to the USSR under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, working with them to negotiate the end of the Cold War. Today, he cuts through the propaganda and the hype and offers a compelling map of the roads not taken.

The end of the Cold War, Matlock notes, came from diplomatic negotiations -- not from the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, the subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union was seen by the Bush administration as a setback for US policy. Reagan and Bush negotiated the end of the Soviet empire, and the unification of Germany. They reassured Soviet leader Gorbachev that if he agreed not to intervene in Eastern Europe, the United States (read NATO) would not take advantage.

While the US worked to gain independence for the Baltic Republics, the Bush administration thought Georgia and Ukraine would fare better in a voluntary association with the Soviet Union. President Bush proclaimed a goal of a "Europe whole and free." Gorbachev spoke of "our common European home," and welcomed representatives of Eastern European governments that had thrown out their communist rulers.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/how-former-ambassador-jack-matlock-corrects-the-record-on-american-foreign-policy/

---

---

Speaking of rewriting history. Good grief…

I mean how do you think we got to the point of a diplomatic wind down?

The Nation is one of the furthest Left wing rags out there. It's not a news source, it's Marxist propaganda. That's true of the entire alphabet soup of fascist propaganda ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, etc but it's more extreme with the far Left "progressive" (fascist) rags.

historian said:

---

The Nation is one of the furthest Left wing rags out there. It's not a news source, it's Marxist propaganda. That's true of the entire alphabet soup of fascist propaganda ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, etc but it's more extreme with the far Left "progressive" (fascist) rags.

---

I wonder who runs it.....


[Katrina vanden Heuvel born October 7, 1959) is an American editor and publisher. She is the publisher, part-owner, and former editor of the progressive magazine The Nation. She was the magazine's editor from 1995 to 2019,

She has one sister and two step-siblings. Her maternal grandparents were Music Corporation of America founder Jules C. Stein and Doris Babbette Jones (originally Jonas). Through Doris, vanden Heuvel is a distant cousin of actor and comedian George Jessel. Her mother was from a Jewish family]

Don David Guttenplan is an American writer who serves as editor of The Nation. A former London correspondent of the magazine, he wrote The Holocaust on Trial,

Guttenplan is of U.S. Jewish origin. He was born in Portsmouth, Virginia and was educated in the Philadelphia]

Redbrickbear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Inaccurate

The US played 'policeman' in the Philippines, Cuba, China, and throughout Central America prior to WW2.

We have spent trillions of dollars and almost a million lives since 1917.

Meanwhile other countries throughout the world magically avoid the excitement of a 9-11 attack.

Strange how that happens when you focus on your own affairs.

---

Your a n isolationist, get it.

---

Your a person who constantly throws that accusation out constantly

We get it

It's the card in your back pocket you always play.

"Muh World War II!"

---

No there are realities of the world where we don't have the luxury of just taking our ball and going home. It may make you feel better, but no one else is standing up to the Putin's and Xi's of the world.

There is more going on than your inconvenience or pocket book. Ostrich all you like. But the reason you had the opportunity for big pay checks and cheap prices was Americas role as policeman. You are experiencing some of what awaits if we don't police the world right now. When America is weak or withdrawn it goes to ****

---

We are in a military alliance network with more than 50 counties across the globe.

We have military bases all over the planet.

What the heck are you talking about "taking our ball and going home"?

No one has ever said we should withdraw from the whole world…something probably impossible for us even to do now….we argue against more unnecessary sand box wars in bum-f-Istan

[The USA has at least 750 military bases installed in 80 countries around the world. 173,000 troops are deployed in at least 159 countries]





https://ubique.americangeo.org/map-of-the-week/map-of-the-week-u-s-military-bases-around-the-world/

---

Exactly, the isolationist idea that we can become Switzerland or some Nation that is not involved is an unrealistic expectation..

---

And respectfully….no one is advocating for that

Americans want less foreign adventurism and regime change wars (Iraq) and less pricey proxy wars that could spin out of control (ukriane)

No one in America wants "isolationism"

---

There are some on this Board. They specifically said that Switzerland and others have no one attack them, don't spend money and don't send their people to die in foreign wars.

---

You bet your ass. Switzerland has done extremely well avoiding the **** shows.

Honestly, haven't you ever noticed ?

Those who have seen the corpses stack up, don't want to be used in another avoidable war ever again.

Whereas those who have never had so much as a broken finger and know they are insulated from seeing combat…….are ALWAYS the biggest Rambo's in any room.

Think I am wrong ?

Just re institute the DRAFT and see what happens.

---

Switzerland has never been on anyone's list for invasion as the return is not worth the trouble.
Neutral Belgium on the other hand….

---

Classic geography issue

Switzerland is up in the alps and hard to conquer (who did it last with success....Napoleon?)

While Belgium is on the flat European plain and a corridor to move through if your France headed east or Germany headed West.

---

Exactly. There is no large country that is not regularly subject to attack because of geography and valuable resources.
A prosperous and resource rich country like the US cannot afford to spend effort to isolate itself. It can insulate, but isolation leads to becoming an easier target as the US will always be due to its wealth.

---

Unless you can pull Canada or Mexico out of the USA orbit and get them to let you station troops in country ....then America is basically impenetrable to attack or invasion.





Surrounded on 3 sides by large oceans (one the Arctic ocean is basically impassable for invasion fleets)

With outward facing defensive islands (Hawaii/Puerto Rico) to place U.S. naval forces

With a small sliver of land to defend in central American along the isthmus there

Fortress North America essentially

No other nation on earth is as defended from invasion as us other than Australia....and it does not have our resources, population, or defensible natural barriers.

---

Indeed.

But if you want or need anything from elsewhere, you then have to play the games of elsewhere…..

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Inaccurate

The US played 'policeman' in the Philippines, Cuba, China, and throughout Central America prior to WW2.

We have spent trillions of dollars and almost a million lives since 1917.

Meanwhile other countries throughout the world magically avoid the excitement of a 9-11 attack.

Strange how that happens when you focus on your own affairs.

---

Your a n isolationist, get it.

---

Your a person who constantly throws that accusation out constantly

We get it

It's the card in your back pocket you always play.

"Muh World War II!"

---

No there are realities of the world where we don't have the luxury of just taking our ball and going home. It may make you feel better, but no one else is standing up to the Putin's and Xi's of the world.

There is more going on than your inconvenience or pocket book. Ostrich all you like. But the reason you had the opportunity for big pay checks and cheap prices was Americas role as policeman. You are experiencing some of what awaits if we don't police the world right now. When America is weak or withdrawn it goes to ****

---

We are in a military alliance network with more than 50 counties across the globe.

We have military bases all over the planet.

What the heck are you talking about "taking our ball and going home"?

No one has ever said we should withdraw from the whole world…something probably impossible for us even to do now….we argue against more unnecessary sand box wars in bum-f-Istan

[The USA has at least 750 military bases installed in 80 countries around the world. 173,000 troops are deployed in at least 159 countries]





https://ubique.americangeo.org/map-of-the-week/map-of-the-week-u-s-military-bases-around-the-world/

---

Exactly, the isolationist idea that we can become Switzerland or some Nation that is not involved is an unrealistic expectation..

---

And respectfully….no one is advocating for that

Americans want less foreign adventurism and regime change wars (Iraq) and less pricey proxy wars that could spin out of control (ukriane)

No one in America wants "isolationism"

---

There are some on this Board. They specifically said that Switzerland and others have no one attack them, don't spend money and don't send their people to die in foreign wars.

---

You bet your ass. Switzerland has done extremely well avoiding the **** shows.

Honestly, haven't you ever noticed ?

Those who have seen the corpses stack up, don't want to be used in another avoidable war ever again.

Whereas those who have never had so much as a broken finger and know they are insulated from seeing combat…….are ALWAYS the biggest Rambo's in any room.

Think I am wrong ?

Just re institute the DRAFT and see what happens.

---

Switzerland has never been on anyone's list for invasion as the return is not worth the trouble.
Neutral Belgium on the other hand….

---

Classic geography issue

Switzerland is up in the alps and hard to conquer (who did it last with success....Napoleon?)

While Belgium is on the flat European plain and a corridor to move through if your France headed east or Germany headed West.

---

Exactly. There is no large country that is not regularly subject to attack because of geography and valuable resources.
A prosperous and resource rich country like the US cannot afford to spend effort to isolate itself. It can insulate, but isolation leads to becoming an easier target as the US will always be due to its wealth.

---

Unless you can pull Canada or Mexico out of the USA orbit and get them to let you station troops in country ....then America is basically impenetrable to attack or invasion.





Surrounded on 3 sides by large oceans (one the Arctic ocean is basically impassable for invasion fleets)

With outward facing defensive islands (Hawaii/Puerto Rico) to place U.S. naval forces

With a small sliver of land to defend in central American along the isthmus there

Fortress North America essentially

No other nation on earth is as defended from invasion as us other than Australia....and it does not have our resources, population, or defensible natural barriers.

---

Indeed.

But if you want or need anything from elsewhere, you then have to play the games of elsewhere…..

---

You have to wonder if we do....

Canada has a population of 40 million, USA of 340 Million, Mexico has 130 million....so 500+ million

And the resources in all 3 nations are VAST

Together North America is a one of a kind Autarky

https://www.britannica.com/place/Canada/Resources-and-power

https://www.britannica.com/place/United-States/Strengths-and-weaknesses

https://www.britannica.com/place/Mexico/Forestry

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Inaccurate

The US played 'policeman' in the Philippines, Cuba, China, and throughout Central America prior to WW2.

We have spent trillions of dollars and almost a million lives since 1917.

Meanwhile other countries throughout the world magically avoid the excitement of a 9-11 attack.

Strange how that happens when you focus on your own affairs.

---

Your a n isolationist, get it.

---

Your a person who constantly throws that accusation out constantly

We get it

It's the card in your back pocket you always play.

"Muh World War II!"

---

No there are realities of the world where we don't have the luxury of just taking our ball and going home. It may make you feel better, but no one else is standing up to the Putin's and Xi's of the world.

There is more going on than your inconvenience or pocket book. Ostrich all you like. But the reason you had the opportunity for big pay checks and cheap prices was Americas role as policeman. You are experiencing some of what awaits if we don't police the world right now. When America is weak or withdrawn it goes to ****

---

We are in a military alliance network with more than 50 counties across the globe.

We have military bases all over the planet.

What the heck are you talking about "taking our ball and going home"?

No one has ever said we should withdraw from the whole world…something probably impossible for us even to do now….we argue against more unnecessary sand box wars in bum-f-Istan

[The USA has at least 750 military bases installed in 80 countries around the world. 173,000 troops are deployed in at least 159 countries]





https://ubique.americangeo.org/map-of-the-week/map-of-the-week-u-s-military-bases-around-the-world/

---

Exactly, the isolationist idea that we can become Switzerland or some Nation that is not involved is an unrealistic expectation..

---

And respectfully….no one is advocating for that

Americans want less foreign adventurism and regime change wars (Iraq) and less pricey proxy wars that could spin out of control (ukriane)

No one in America wants "isolationism"

---

There are some on this Board. They specifically said that Switzerland and others have no one attack them, don't spend money and don't send their people to die in foreign wars.

---

You bet your ass. Switzerland has done extremely well avoiding the **** shows.

Honestly, haven't you ever noticed ?

Those who have seen the corpses stack up, don't want to be used in another avoidable war ever again.

Whereas those who have never had so much as a broken finger and know they are insulated from seeing combat…….are ALWAYS the biggest Rambo's in any room.

Think I am wrong ?

Just re institute the DRAFT and see what happens.

---

Switzerland has never been on anyone's list for invasion as the return is not worth the trouble.
Neutral Belgium on the other hand….

---

Classic geography issue

Switzerland is up in the alps and hard to conquer (who did it last with success....Napoleon?)

While Belgium is on the flat European plain and a corridor to move through if your France headed east or Germany headed West.

---

Exactly. There is no large country that is not regularly subject to attack because of geography and valuable resources.
A prosperous and resource rich country like the US cannot afford to spend effort to isolate itself. It can insulate, but isolation leads to becoming an easier target as the US will always be due to its wealth.

---

Unless you can pull Canada or Mexico out of the USA orbit and get them to let you station troops in country ....then America is basically impenetrable to attack or invasion.





Surrounded on 3 sides by large oceans (one the Arctic ocean is basically impassable for invasion fleets)

With outward facing defensive islands (Hawaii/Puerto Rico) to place U.S. naval forces

With a small sliver of land to defend in central American along the isthmus there

Fortress North America essentially

No other nation on earth is as defended from invasion as us other than Australia....and it does not have our resources, population, or defensible natural barriers.

---

Indeed.

But if you want or need anything from elsewhere, you then have to play the games of elsewhere…..

---

You have to wonder if we do....

Canada has a population of 40 million, USA of 340 Million, Mexico has 130 million....so 500+ million

And the resources in all 3 nations are VAST

Together North America is a one of a kind Autarky

https://www.britannica.com/place/Canada/Resources-and-power

https://www.britannica.com/place/United-States/Strengths-and-weaknesses

https://www.britannica.com/place/Mexico/Forestry

---

I know that. My BBA was in "World Resources and Industries."

just because we could go it alone does not mean it is necessarily in our best interests to so. There are some things that others will be able to do better. That is even more true in the age of technology, where the primary resource is the human mind. And that's before we get to the realm of "customers." If you do not have the power to protect your markets, others will muscle in on them.

EX: if the price of oil falls to $20/barrel, we should import it rather than pump it. Buy low, sell high. Drain the other guys fields when it's cheap and leave yours in the ground to sell it later at a higher price when the other guy is out. But you won't be able to do that if you turn isolationist and let other (weaker) foreign powers box you out

It's an unfortunate truth in the history of Marxism that Jews were involved including Marx himself & including Trotsky, Litvinov, and others. But this doesn't mean that it's a Jewish phenomenon. That's more Nazi propaganda targeting anti-Marxists although the Nazis were Marxist than the Jews in general.

The new Hezbollah leader Hassan Khalil Yassin has been killed by the IDF.

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) September 28, 2024

One less terrorist killing innocent people, thanks to the IDF

Nasrallah was killed by the western cynic's lack of faith in the hopeful potential of the diplomatic process that might yet bring about a ceasefire, and also an F-35, but mostly the F-35.

— Sunny (@sunnyright) September 29, 2024

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

It's still about survival for the Jews. They are an existential crisis fighting a war against barbaric terrorists who want them all dead. Too many posters in this forum dismiss or forget that fact. What's amazing is how some Israeli's seem to forget that as well. Although I'm I don't believe the propaganda from the antisemitic press on anything, particularly when it comes to numbers of self-hating Jews.

---

Over 550 Lebanese have been killed in the last 48 hours by indiscriminate Israeli air attacks.

What about their survival ?

Why are the lives of Israeli children more precious than Lebanese ?

---

Maybe the Lebanese should stop putting Hezbollah missiles in civilian houses. Could help. Sort of like Ukraine, Putin stops invading, no more attacks on Russia. Lebanon stops allowing missiles to be fired, no more missiles coming in Lebanon.

Or, they can leave. That's right Hezbollah won't let them, but its the IDF fault.

You were in the military, you give an evacuation order, give time to leave and then go forward. What should the IDF do? Just let them fire missiles into Israel? They have cruise missiles in houses.

---

A dead child, is a dead child, regardless if it's Israeli, Lebanese, Russian, Ukrainian, Palestinian, Kuwaitis, Iraqi or American.

With its nuclear weapons, armor and overwhelming air superiority; Israel feels immune to the consequences of its indiscriminate air attacks against a weak neighbor.

Hope Turkey finally brings some reality to the Zionists. Only then is there a real chance for a negotiated settlement.

Especially since our DC politicians have been bought and paid for by the Zionist lobbyists for decades.

The US needs to stop funding these butcheries. Period.
The US needs to stop using our poor and working class overseas to continue to bleed on behalf of our elites.


WE ARE BEING MANIPULATED.

---

Might be right.

You have a better shot at peace is Israel wins than Hezbellan or Hamas. They will just find someone else to hate and kill. It is what they do.

---

They don't hate Swedes, Swiss, Hungarians, or anyone in Central or South America.

Maybe, just maybe it's because none of those countries launch air strikes throughout the Middle East periodically.

We simply need to be like a host of other countries and stop attempting to be the worlds policeman.

---

Well, for 80 years it worked. Someone had to do it and the US as the Policemen limited the wars to regional types.

Are we ready for what happens when the US as cop isn't there? When we are relying on Putin and Xi's sense of fairness and human rights?

Not saying you are wrong, just that there are ramifications either way.

---

WW2

500,000 dead US servicemen

Result : Japan, Germany and Italy crushed. Millions dead.

Soviet Union rules Eastern Europe for over 50 years.
China goes communist


Korean War

38,000 US servicemen killed

Result : Mao shows the rest of the Far East the US can be beaten in a conventional war. China begins its journey towards dominance.

Vietnam War

53,000 US servicemen dead. Hundreds of thousands wounded.
Humiliation for the United States worldwide. American society begins its crumbling.

First Iraqi War. Bush and the US Army kicks ass. Follows UN mandate. Liberates Kuwait. Protects western oil nerfs.

2nd Iraqi War. US Army kicks ass again. Conquers Iraqi in one of the most tactically brilliant displays since the Mexican War.
US politicians then lose the peace. Iran power grows in the vacuum.



Meanwhile

9-11 over 3000 US civilians dead

---

All the wars you describe were regional and limited. They occurred because the US and our allies were in position to keep it to a regional war and not go through WW1 or WW2 again.

---

We avoided another world war because we understood our opponents and respected their security interests. Today that's considered "anti-American."

---

We both chose to fight proxy wars and not direct wars.

---

It's more than that. We cooperated on arms control instead of wantonly renouncing treaties. We recognized indivisible security instead of taking an absolute (and absolutely hypocritical) stand on national sovereignty. For the most part we didn't threaten the Russian homeland or the Russian regime. In many ways we were less adversarial during the Cold War than we have been since.

---

I'm sorry Sam, but I really think you have rewritten history in your head over the Ukraine conflict. START was the first actual arms reduction treaty, and it was signed in 1991 at the very end of the Cold War. SALTs were just talks and nothing else.

Our wanton efforts in Eastern Europe were the coup de gras on the Soviet Union. There was no "Kumbaya" between the powers until maybe the very end, when everyone knew what was coming. I remember when the made for TV movie "The Day After", which symbolized the real domestic fear of Soviet nuclear attack was broadcast maybe 6 years before the Berlin Wall fell. Reagan was a hard core cold warrior and many feared had brought us to the brink of real direct conflict, especially during his first term. Much more so than any puerile threat Putin is throwing out there.

---

ABM signed in 1972. INF signed in 1987. Open Skies initiated by GHW Bush in 1989, signed in 1992. All abrogated as we pushed nuclear-capable missiles into Romania and Poland.

Your second paragraph is an example of rewriting history. It's one of the most crucial errors in this entire debate.

Quote:

---

The tragedy of American foreign policy is that the leaders and national security managers who led us into these debacles or helped sell them to the public remain in charge of American foreign policy and are guardians of the conventional wisdom. Instead of listening to those who got it right, we seem condemned to follow those who got it wrong over and over again.

That is why the voice of 95-year-old Jack Matlock is so important -- and deserves far more attention. Ambassador Matlock, a career foreign service officer, served as ambassador to the USSR under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, working with them to negotiate the end of the Cold War. Today, he cuts through the propaganda and the hype and offers a compelling map of the roads not taken.

The end of the Cold War, Matlock notes, came from diplomatic negotiations -- not from the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, the subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union was seen by the Bush administration as a setback for US policy. Reagan and Bush negotiated the end of the Soviet empire, and the unification of Germany. They reassured Soviet leader Gorbachev that if he agreed not to intervene in Eastern Europe, the United States (read NATO) would not take advantage.

While the US worked to gain independence for the Baltic Republics, the Bush administration thought Georgia and Ukraine would fare better in a voluntary association with the Soviet Union. President Bush proclaimed a goal of a "Europe whole and free." Gorbachev spoke of "our common European home," and welcomed representatives of Eastern European governments that had thrown out their communist rulers.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/how-former-ambassador-jack-matlock-corrects-the-record-on-american-foreign-policy/

---

---

Speaking of rewriting history. Good grief…

I mean how do you think we got to the point of a diplomatic wind down?

---

Glad you asked.

Quote:

---

Gorbachev altered [the] dynamic. He was determined to take the Soviet Union in a radically different directionaway from the Big Lie (through his policy of glasnost), away from a command economy (through perestroika) and away from zero-sum competition with the West.

Reagan came quickly to recognize that Gorbachev's goals, far from being traditional, were downright revolutionary. He also saw that the transformation Gorbachev had in mind for his country would, if it came about, serve American interests.

As a result, without much fuss and without many of his supporters noticing, Reagan underwent a transformation of his own. The fire-breathing cold warrior set about trying, through intense, sustained personal engagement, to convince Gorbachev that the United States would not make him sorry for the course he had chosen.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/reagan-and-gorbachev-shutting-the-cold-war-down/

---

Quote:

---

Nonetheless, the growing documentary record, along with memoirs and oral histories, allows for a more careful assessment of Reagan's personal impact on the endgame of the Cold War. His role was important, albeit not as important as Mikhail Gorbachev's. But his significance stemmed less from the arms buildup and ideological offensive that he launched at the onset of his presidency in 1981 than from his desires to abolish nuclear weapons, tamp down the strategic arms race, and avoid Armageddon. These priorities inspired Reagan to make overtures to Soviet leaders; gain a better understanding of their fears; and, eventually, to engage Gorbachev with conviction, empathy, and geniality. After 1985, many of Reagan's national security advisers, intelligence analysts, and political allies disdained the president's nuclear abolitionism, distrusted Gorbachev, and exaggerated the strength and durability of the Soviet regime. Reagan, however, strove to consummate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, push forward on strategic arms reductions, and solidify his relationship with a pliable Soviet leader who was trying to reshape his own country. Reagan's sincerity, goodwill, strong desire for negotiations, and shared commitment to nuclear abolition (however abstract) reassured Gorbachev, helping to sustain a trajectory whose end results the Soviet leader did not foresee or contemplate. Paradoxically, then, Reagan nurtured the dynamics that won the Cold War by focusing on ways to end it.

https://tnsr.org/2018/05/ronald-reagan-and-the-cold-war-what-mattered-most/

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Inaccurate

The US played 'policeman' in the Philippines, Cuba, China, and throughout Central America prior to WW2.

We have spent trillions of dollars and almost a million lives since 1917.

Meanwhile other countries throughout the world magically avoid the excitement of a 9-11 attack.

Strange how that happens when you focus on your own affairs.

---

Your a n isolationist, get it.

---

Your a person who constantly throws that accusation out constantly

We get it

It's the card in your back pocket you always play.

"Muh World War II!"

---

No there are realities of the world where we don't have the luxury of just taking our ball and going home. It may make you feel better, but no one else is standing up to the Putin's and Xi's of the world.

There is more going on than your inconvenience or pocket book. Ostrich all you like. But the reason you had the opportunity for big pay checks and cheap prices was Americas role as policeman. You are experiencing some of what awaits if we don't police the world right now. When America is weak or withdrawn it goes to ****

---

We are in a military alliance network with more than 50 counties across the globe.

We have military bases all over the planet.

What the heck are you talking about "taking our ball and going home"?

No one has ever said we should withdraw from the whole world…something probably impossible for us even to do now….we argue against more unnecessary sand box wars in bum-f-Istan

[The USA has at least 750 military bases installed in 80 countries around the world. 173,000 troops are deployed in at least 159 countries]





https://ubique.americangeo.org/map-of-the-week/map-of-the-week-u-s-military-bases-around-the-world/

---

Exactly, the isolationist idea that we can become Switzerland or some Nation that is not involved is an unrealistic expectation..

---

And respectfully….no one is advocating for that

Americans want less foreign adventurism and regime change wars (Iraq) and less pricey proxy wars that could spin out of control (ukriane)

No one in America wants "isolationism"

---

There are some on this Board. They specifically said that Switzerland and others have no one attack them, don't spend money and don't send their people to die in foreign wars.

---

You bet your ass. Switzerland has done extremely well avoiding the **** shows.

Honestly, haven't you ever noticed ?

Those who have seen the corpses stack up, don't want to be used in another avoidable war ever again.

Whereas those who have never had so much as a broken finger and know they are insulated from seeing combat…….are ALWAYS the biggest Rambo's in any room.

Think I am wrong ?

Just re institute the DRAFT and see what happens.

---

Switzerland has never been on anyone's list for invasion as the return is not worth the trouble.
Neutral Belgium on the other hand….

---

Classic geography issue

Switzerland is up in the alps and hard to conquer (who did it last with success....Napoleon?)

While Belgium is on the flat European plain and a corridor to move through if your France headed east or Germany headed West.

---

Exactly. There is no large country that is not regularly subject to attack because of geography and valuable resources.
A prosperous and resource rich country like the US cannot afford to spend effort to isolate itself. It can insulate, but isolation leads to becoming an easier target as the US will always be due to its wealth.

---

Unless you can pull Canada or Mexico out of the USA orbit and get them to let you station troops in country ....then America is basically impenetrable to attack or invasion.





Surrounded on 3 sides by large oceans (one the Arctic ocean is basically impassable for invasion fleets)

With outward facing defensive islands (Hawaii/Puerto Rico) to place U.S. naval forces

With a small sliver of land to defend in central American along the isthmus there

Fortress North America essentially

No other nation on earth is as defended from invasion as us other than Australia....and it does not have our resources, population, or defensible natural barriers.

---

Indeed.

But if you want or need anything from elsewhere, you then have to play the games of elsewhere…..

---

The name of that game is "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

We are sadly out of practice.

Is that quote from? It reminds me of Washington's Farewell Address but I don't remember it using that phrase.

historian said:

---

Is that quote from? It reminds me of Washington's Farewell Address but I don't remember it using that phrase.

---

Thomas Jefferson, citing Washington for inspiration.

Thanks

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

It's still about survival for the Jews. They are an existential crisis fighting a war against barbaric terrorists who want them all dead. Too many posters in this forum dismiss or forget that fact. What's amazing is how some Israeli's seem to forget that as well. Although I'm I don't believe the propaganda from the antisemitic press on anything, particularly when it comes to numbers of self-hating Jews.

---

Over 550 Lebanese have been killed in the last 48 hours by indiscriminate Israeli air attacks.

What about their survival ?

Why are the lives of Israeli children more precious than Lebanese ?

---

Maybe the Lebanese should stop putting Hezbollah missiles in civilian houses. Could help. Sort of like Ukraine, Putin stops invading, no more attacks on Russia. Lebanon stops allowing missiles to be fired, no more missiles coming in Lebanon.

Or, they can leave. That's right Hezbollah won't let them, but its the IDF fault.

You were in the military, you give an evacuation order, give time to leave and then go forward. What should the IDF do? Just let them fire missiles into Israel? They have cruise missiles in houses.

---

A dead child, is a dead child, regardless if it's Israeli, Lebanese, Russian, Ukrainian, Palestinian, Kuwaitis, Iraqi or American.

With its nuclear weapons, armor and overwhelming air superiority; Israel feels immune to the consequences of its indiscriminate air attacks against a weak neighbor.

Hope Turkey finally brings some reality to the Zionists. Only then is there a real chance for a negotiated settlement.

Especially since our DC politicians have been bought and paid for by the Zionist lobbyists for decades.

The US needs to stop funding these butcheries. Period.
The US needs to stop using our poor and working class overseas to continue to bleed on behalf of our elites.


WE ARE BEING MANIPULATED.

---

Might be right.

You have a better shot at peace is Israel wins than Hezbellan or Hamas. They will just find someone else to hate and kill. It is what they do.

---

They don't hate Swedes, Swiss, Hungarians, or anyone in Central or South America.

Maybe, just maybe it's because none of those countries launch air strikes throughout the Middle East periodically.

We simply need to be like a host of other countries and stop attempting to be the worlds policeman.

---

Well, for 80 years it worked. Someone had to do it and the US as the Policemen limited the wars to regional types.

Are we ready for what happens when the US as cop isn't there? When we are relying on Putin and Xi's sense of fairness and human rights?

Not saying you are wrong, just that there are ramifications either way.

---

WW2

500,000 dead US servicemen

Result : Japan, Germany and Italy crushed. Millions dead.

Soviet Union rules Eastern Europe for over 50 years.
China goes communist


Korean War

38,000 US servicemen killed

Result : Mao shows the rest of the Far East the US can be beaten in a conventional war. China begins its journey towards dominance.

Vietnam War

53,000 US servicemen dead. Hundreds of thousands wounded.
Humiliation for the United States worldwide. American society begins its crumbling.

First Iraqi War. Bush and the US Army kicks ass. Follows UN mandate. Liberates Kuwait. Protects western oil nerfs.

2nd Iraqi War. US Army kicks ass again. Conquers Iraqi in one of the most tactically brilliant displays since the Mexican War.
US politicians then lose the peace. Iran power grows in the vacuum.



Meanwhile

9-11 over 3000 US civilians dead

---

All the wars you describe were regional and limited. They occurred because the US and our allies were in position to keep it to a regional war and not go through WW1 or WW2 again.

---

We avoided another world war because we understood our opponents and respected their security interests. Today that's considered "anti-American."

---

We both chose to fight proxy wars and not direct wars.

---

It's more than that. We cooperated on arms control instead of wantonly renouncing treaties. We recognized indivisible security instead of taking an absolute (and absolutely hypocritical) stand on national sovereignty. For the most part we didn't threaten the Russian homeland or the Russian regime. In many ways we were less adversarial during the Cold War than we have been since.

---

I'm sorry Sam, but I really think you have rewritten history in your head over the Ukraine conflict. START was the first actual arms reduction treaty, and it was signed in 1991 at the very end of the Cold War. SALTs were just talks and nothing else.

Our wanton efforts in Eastern Europe were the coup de gras on the Soviet Union. There was no "Kumbaya" between the powers until maybe the very end, when everyone knew what was coming. I remember when the made for TV movie "The Day After", which symbolized the real domestic fear of Soviet nuclear attack was broadcast maybe 6 years before the Berlin Wall fell. Reagan was a hard core cold warrior and many feared had brought us to the brink of real direct conflict, especially during his first term. Much more so than any puerile threat Putin is throwing out there.

---

ABM signed in 1972. INF signed in 1987. Open Skies initiated by GHW Bush in 1989, signed in 1992. All abrogated as we pushed nuclear-capable missiles into Romania and Poland.

Your second paragraph is an example of rewriting history. It's one of the most crucial errors in this entire debate.

Quote:

---

The tragedy of American foreign policy is that the leaders and national security managers who led us into these debacles or helped sell them to the public remain in charge of American foreign policy and are guardians of the conventional wisdom. Instead of listening to those who got it right, we seem condemned to follow those who got it wrong over and over again.

That is why the voice of 95-year-old Jack Matlock is so important -- and deserves far more attention. Ambassador Matlock, a career foreign service officer, served as ambassador to the USSR under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, working with them to negotiate the end of the Cold War. Today, he cuts through the propaganda and the hype and offers a compelling map of the roads not taken.

The end of the Cold War, Matlock notes, came from diplomatic negotiations -- not from the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, the subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union was seen by the Bush administration as a setback for US policy. Reagan and Bush negotiated the end of the Soviet empire, and the unification of Germany. They reassured Soviet leader Gorbachev that if he agreed not to intervene in Eastern Europe, the United States (read NATO) would not take advantage.

While the US worked to gain independence for the Baltic Republics, the Bush administration thought Georgia and Ukraine would fare better in a voluntary association with the Soviet Union. President Bush proclaimed a goal of a "Europe whole and free." Gorbachev spoke of "our common European home," and welcomed representatives of Eastern European governments that had thrown out their communist rulers.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/how-former-ambassador-jack-matlock-corrects-the-record-on-american-foreign-policy/

---

---

Speaking of rewriting history. Good grief…

I mean how do you think we got to the point of a diplomatic wind down?

---

Glad you asked.

Quote:

---

Gorbachev altered [the] dynamic. He was determined to take the Soviet Union in a radically different directionaway from the Big Lie (through his policy of glasnost), away from a command economy (through perestroika) and away from zero-sum competition with the West.

Reagan came quickly to recognize that Gorbachev's goals, far from being traditional, were downright revolutionary. He also saw that the transformation Gorbachev had in mind for his country would, if it came about, serve American interests.

As a result, without much fuss and without many of his supporters noticing, Reagan underwent a transformation of his own. The fire-breathing cold warrior set about trying, through intense, sustained personal engagement, to convince Gorbachev that the United States would not make him sorry for the course he had chosen.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/reagan-and-gorbachev-shutting-the-cold-war-down/

---

Quote:

---

Nonetheless, the growing documentary record, along with memoirs and oral histories, allows for a more careful assessment of Reagan's personal impact on the endgame of the Cold War. His role was important, albeit not as important as Mikhail Gorbachev's. But his significance stemmed less from the arms buildup and ideological offensive that he launched at the onset of his presidency in 1981 than from his desires to abolish nuclear weapons, tamp down the strategic arms race, and avoid Armageddon. These priorities inspired Reagan to make overtures to Soviet leaders; gain a better understanding of their fears; and, eventually, to engage Gorbachev with conviction, empathy, and geniality. After 1985, many of Reagan's national security advisers, intelligence analysts, and political allies disdained the president's nuclear abolitionism, distrusted Gorbachev, and exaggerated the strength and durability of the Soviet regime. Reagan, however, strove to consummate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, push forward on strategic arms reductions, and solidify his relationship with a pliable Soviet leader who was trying to reshape his own country. Reagan's sincerity, goodwill, strong desire for negotiations, and shared commitment to nuclear abolition (however abstract) reassured Gorbachev, helping to sustain a trajectory whose end results the Soviet leader did not foresee or contemplate. Paradoxically, then, Reagan nurtured the dynamics that won the Cold War by focusing on ways to end it.

https://tnsr.org/2018/05/ronald-reagan-and-the-cold-war-what-mattered-most/

---

---

Who, where is the Gorbachev of Islam

Maybe the crown prince of Saudi Arabia but probably not.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

It's still about survival for the Jews. They are an existential crisis fighting a war against barbaric terrorists who want them all dead. Too many posters in this forum dismiss or forget that fact. What's amazing is how some Israeli's seem to forget that as well. Although I'm I don't believe the propaganda from the antisemitic press on anything, particularly when it comes to numbers of self-hating Jews.

---

Over 550 Lebanese have been killed in the last 48 hours by indiscriminate Israeli air attacks.

What about their survival ?

Why are the lives of Israeli children more precious than Lebanese ?

---

Maybe the Lebanese should stop putting Hezbollah missiles in civilian houses. Could help. Sort of like Ukraine, Putin stops invading, no more attacks on Russia. Lebanon stops allowing missiles to be fired, no more missiles coming in Lebanon.

Or, they can leave. That's right Hezbollah won't let them, but its the IDF fault.

You were in the military, you give an evacuation order, give time to leave and then go forward. What should the IDF do? Just let them fire missiles into Israel? They have cruise missiles in houses.

---

A dead child, is a dead child, regardless if it's Israeli, Lebanese, Russian, Ukrainian, Palestinian, Kuwaitis, Iraqi or American.

With its nuclear weapons, armor and overwhelming air superiority; Israel feels immune to the consequences of its indiscriminate air attacks against a weak neighbor.

Hope Turkey finally brings some reality to the Zionists. Only then is there a real chance for a negotiated settlement.

Especially since our DC politicians have been bought and paid for by the Zionist lobbyists for decades.

The US needs to stop funding these butcheries. Period.
The US needs to stop using our poor and working class overseas to continue to bleed on behalf of our elites.


WE ARE BEING MANIPULATED.

---

Might be right.

You have a better shot at peace is Israel wins than Hezbellan or Hamas. They will just find someone else to hate and kill. It is what they do.

---

They don't hate Swedes, Swiss, Hungarians, or anyone in Central or South America.

Maybe, just maybe it's because none of those countries launch air strikes throughout the Middle East periodically.

We simply need to be like a host of other countries and stop attempting to be the worlds policeman.

---

Well, for 80 years it worked. Someone had to do it and the US as the Policemen limited the wars to regional types.

Are we ready for what happens when the US as cop isn't there? When we are relying on Putin and Xi's sense of fairness and human rights?

Not saying you are wrong, just that there are ramifications either way.

---

WW2

500,000 dead US servicemen

Result : Japan, Germany and Italy crushed. Millions dead.

Soviet Union rules Eastern Europe for over 50 years.
China goes communist


Korean War

38,000 US servicemen killed

Result : Mao shows the rest of the Far East the US can be beaten in a conventional war. China begins its journey towards dominance.

Vietnam War

53,000 US servicemen dead. Hundreds of thousands wounded.
Humiliation for the United States worldwide. American society begins its crumbling.

First Iraqi War. Bush and the US Army kicks ass. Follows UN mandate. Liberates Kuwait. Protects western oil nerfs.

2nd Iraqi War. US Army kicks ass again. Conquers Iraqi in one of the most tactically brilliant displays since the Mexican War.
US politicians then lose the peace. Iran power grows in the vacuum.



Meanwhile

9-11 over 3000 US civilians dead

---

All the wars you describe were regional and limited. They occurred because the US and our allies were in position to keep it to a regional war and not go through WW1 or WW2 again.

---

We avoided another world war because we understood our opponents and respected their security interests. Today that's considered "anti-American."

---

We both chose to fight proxy wars and not direct wars.

---

It's more than that. We cooperated on arms control instead of wantonly renouncing treaties. We recognized indivisible security instead of taking an absolute (and absolutely hypocritical) stand on national sovereignty. For the most part we didn't threaten the Russian homeland or the Russian regime. In many ways we were less adversarial during the Cold War than we have been since.

---

I'm sorry Sam, but I really think you have rewritten history in your head over the Ukraine conflict. START was the first actual arms reduction treaty, and it was signed in 1991 at the very end of the Cold War. SALTs were just talks and nothing else.

Our wanton efforts in Eastern Europe were the coup de gras on the Soviet Union. There was no "Kumbaya" between the powers until maybe the very end, when everyone knew what was coming. I remember when the made for TV movie "The Day After", which symbolized the real domestic fear of Soviet nuclear attack was broadcast maybe 6 years before the Berlin Wall fell. Reagan was a hard core cold warrior and many feared had brought us to the brink of real direct conflict, especially during his first term. Much more so than any puerile threat Putin is throwing out there.

---

ABM signed in 1972. INF signed in 1987. Open Skies initiated by GHW Bush in 1989, signed in 1992. All abrogated as we pushed nuclear-capable missiles into Romania and Poland.

Your second paragraph is an example of rewriting history. It's one of the most crucial errors in this entire debate.

Quote:

---

The tragedy of American foreign policy is that the leaders and national security managers who led us into these debacles or helped sell them to the public remain in charge of American foreign policy and are guardians of the conventional wisdom. Instead of listening to those who got it right, we seem condemned to follow those who got it wrong over and over again.

That is why the voice of 95-year-old Jack Matlock is so important -- and deserves far more attention. Ambassador Matlock, a career foreign service officer, served as ambassador to the USSR under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, working with them to negotiate the end of the Cold War. Today, he cuts through the propaganda and the hype and offers a compelling map of the roads not taken.

The end of the Cold War, Matlock notes, came from diplomatic negotiations -- not from the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, the subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union was seen by the Bush administration as a setback for US policy. Reagan and Bush negotiated the end of the Soviet empire, and the unification of Germany. They reassured Soviet leader Gorbachev that if he agreed not to intervene in Eastern Europe, the United States (read NATO) would not take advantage.

While the US worked to gain independence for the Baltic Republics, the Bush administration thought Georgia and Ukraine would fare better in a voluntary association with the Soviet Union. President Bush proclaimed a goal of a "Europe whole and free." Gorbachev spoke of "our common European home," and welcomed representatives of Eastern European governments that had thrown out their communist rulers.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/how-former-ambassador-jack-matlock-corrects-the-record-on-american-foreign-policy/

---

---

Speaking of rewriting history. Good grief…

I mean how do you think we got to the point of a diplomatic wind down?

---

Glad you asked.

Quote:

---

Gorbachev altered [the] dynamic. He was determined to take the Soviet Union in a radically different directionaway from the Big Lie (through his policy of glasnost), away from a command economy (through perestroika) and away from zero-sum competition with the West.

Reagan came quickly to recognize that Gorbachev's goals, far from being traditional, were downright revolutionary. He also saw that the transformation Gorbachev had in mind for his country would, if it came about, serve American interests.

As a result, without much fuss and without many of his supporters noticing, Reagan underwent a transformation of his own. The fire-breathing cold warrior set about trying, through intense, sustained personal engagement, to convince Gorbachev that the United States would not make him sorry for the course he had chosen.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/reagan-and-gorbachev-shutting-the-cold-war-down/

---

Quote:

---

Nonetheless, the growing documentary record, along with memoirs and oral histories, allows for a more careful assessment of Reagan's personal impact on the endgame of the Cold War. His role was important, albeit not as important as Mikhail Gorbachev's. But his significance stemmed less from the arms buildup and ideological offensive that he launched at the onset of his presidency in 1981 than from his desires to abolish nuclear weapons, tamp down the strategic arms race, and avoid Armageddon. These priorities inspired Reagan to make overtures to Soviet leaders; gain a better understanding of their fears; and, eventually, to engage Gorbachev with conviction, empathy, and geniality. After 1985, many of Reagan's national security advisers, intelligence analysts, and political allies disdained the president's nuclear abolitionism, distrusted Gorbachev, and exaggerated the strength and durability of the Soviet regime. Reagan, however, strove to consummate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, push forward on strategic arms reductions, and solidify his relationship with a pliable Soviet leader who was trying to reshape his own country. Reagan's sincerity, goodwill, strong desire for negotiations, and shared commitment to nuclear abolition (however abstract) reassured Gorbachev, helping to sustain a trajectory whose end results the Soviet leader did not foresee or contemplate. Paradoxically, then, Reagan nurtured the dynamics that won the Cold War by focusing on ways to end it.

https://tnsr.org/2018/05/ronald-reagan-and-the-cold-war-what-mattered-most/

---

---

At least you showed your work on the rewrite.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Inaccurate

The US played 'policeman' in the Philippines, Cuba, China, and throughout Central America prior to WW2.

We have spent trillions of dollars and almost a million lives since 1917.

Meanwhile other countries throughout the world magically avoid the excitement of a 9-11 attack.

Strange how that happens when you focus on your own affairs.

---

Your a n isolationist, get it.

---

Your a person who constantly throws that accusation out constantly

We get it

It's the card in your back pocket you always play.

"Muh World War II!"

---

No there are realities of the world where we don't have the luxury of just taking our ball and going home. It may make you feel better, but no one else is standing up to the Putin's and Xi's of the world.

There is more going on than your inconvenience or pocket book. Ostrich all you like. But the reason you had the opportunity for big pay checks and cheap prices was Americas role as policeman. You are experiencing some of what awaits if we don't police the world right now. When America is weak or withdrawn it goes to ****

---

We are in a military alliance network with more than 50 counties across the globe.

We have military bases all over the planet.

What the heck are you talking about "taking our ball and going home"?

No one has ever said we should withdraw from the whole world…something probably impossible for us even to do now….we argue against more unnecessary sand box wars in bum-f-Istan

[The USA has at least 750 military bases installed in 80 countries around the world. 173,000 troops are deployed in at least 159 countries]





https://ubique.americangeo.org/map-of-the-week/map-of-the-week-u-s-military-bases-around-the-world/

---

Exactly, the isolationist idea that we can become Switzerland or some Nation that is not involved is an unrealistic expectation..

---

And respectfully….no one is advocating for that

Americans want less foreign adventurism and regime change wars (Iraq) and less pricey proxy wars that could spin out of control (ukriane)

No one in America wants "isolationism"

---

There are some on this Board. They specifically said that Switzerland and others have no one attack them, don't spend money and don't send their people to die in foreign wars.

---

You bet your ass. Switzerland has done extremely well avoiding the **** shows.

Honestly, haven't you ever noticed ?

Those who have seen the corpses stack up, don't want to be used in another avoidable war ever again.

Whereas those who have never had so much as a broken finger and know they are insulated from seeing combat…….are ALWAYS the biggest Rambo's in any room.

Think I am wrong ?

Just re institute the DRAFT and see what happens.

---

Switzerland has never been on anyone's list for invasion as the return is not worth the trouble.
Neutral Belgium on the other hand….

---

Classic geography issue

Switzerland is up in the alps and hard to conquer (who did it last with success....Napoleon?)

While Belgium is on the flat European plain and a corridor to move through if your France headed east or Germany headed West.

---

Exactly. There is no large country that is not regularly subject to attack because of geography and valuable resources.
A prosperous and resource rich country like the US cannot afford to spend effort to isolate itself. It can insulate, but isolation leads to becoming an easier target as the US will always be due to its wealth.

---

Unless you can pull Canada or Mexico out of the USA orbit and get them to let you station troops in country ....then America is basically impenetrable to attack or invasion.





Surrounded on 3 sides by large oceans (one the Arctic ocean is basically impassable for invasion fleets)

With outward facing defensive islands (Hawaii/Puerto Rico) to place U.S. naval forces

With a small sliver of land to defend in central American along the isthmus there

Fortress North America essentially

No other nation on earth is as defended from invasion as us other than Australia....and it does not have our resources, population, or defensible natural barriers.

---

Indeed.

But if you want or need anything from elsewhere, you then have to play the games of elsewhere…..

---

The name of that game is "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

We are sadly out of practice.

---

sigh. the Noble Savage argument that is foundational to your worldview. Can you give us an example in the last 20-30 years of a place reciprocating with "peace, commerce, and honest friendships" who found themselves facing our troops?