- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why in the world is the House openly taking a side in a foreign war?
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:07 am to Buryl
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:07 am to Buryl
quote:
WW1 and WW2 showed that isolationism wasn't feasible US foreign policy in the 20th century.
How so? The beginning of those wars had nothing to do with US foreign policy. The "resolution" to the first one caused the second one. And I'd make the argument that our allies (USSR and China) in the second one were worse than our enemies.
3
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:07 am to Wildcat1996
Why are there Broadway plays? Hollywood flicks? Tee-Bee shows??
IT'S ALL THEATER.
IT'S ALL THEATER.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:13 am to Buryl
quote:
WW1 and WW2 showed that isolationism wasn't feasible US foreign policy in the 20th century.
We weren't "Isolationist." While youre at it, hows our interventionist policy been since 1960?
People need to top resorting to hyperbole to make a simple point.
This post was edited on 12/22/22 at 10:14 am
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:17 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
The beginning of those wars [WW1 & 2) had nothing to do with US foreign policy.
The "resolution" to the first one caused the second one. And I'd make the argument that our allies (USSR and China) in the second one were worse than our enemies.
+2
US "Ally" Comrade Stalin had just mopped up starvation-genocide ops of 10-20 million in the Ukraine during the 1930s (ironically creating the original "Nazi"-symps). THEN he made sure the depop of the USSR took another 10-20 million hit *during* a WW2 he helped create.
Or Commie Weasels in the State Dept made sure China went RED after WW2.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:18 am to Wildcat1996
I don't think the US explicitly taking a side is all that unusual.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:18 am to Wildcat1996
It is very much charity and I resent it.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:19 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
How so? The beginning of those wars had nothing to do with US foreign policy. The "resolution" to the first one caused the second one. And I'd make the argument that our allies (USSR and China) in the second one were worse than our enemies.
DING DING DING
but not a popular opinion.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:20 am to Wildcat1996
75% of the GOP sides with giving Ukraine aid. It's primarily wingnuts on both sides like the MTG's and the AOC's (along with Bernie) who are against doing anything.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:21 am to Bunk Moreland
Numerous other times have leaders of foreign nations addressed a joint session of congress.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:22 am to Wildcat1996
quote:
Why in the world is the House openly taking a side in a foreign war?
quote:
"every person in congress is getting paid"
You answered your own question, but the fact you don’t believe the answer is your own problem.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:22 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
How so? The beginning of those wars had nothing to do with US foreign policy. The "resolution" to the first one caused the second one. And I'd make the argument that our allies (USSR and China) in the second one were worse than our enemies.
In terms of feasibility, the orientation of the entire world's political economy was around global trade, and thus, the very narrow scope of how the US defined 'isolationism' had to give way to the realities surrounding global trade. And the second argument is undermined by the realities of geopolitics, as you don't often get to choose your allies based on their own moral principles and how they might or might not align with your own.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:23 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
I think the display was so over the top that people are a bit shocked.
Everything they do is a distraction. By having this circus yesterday, it made every conservative host spend the entire 24 hour news cycle discussing it..
instead of:
-Largest banking scandal in modern history
-Twitter colluding with the FBI to alter free speech
-1.7t spending bill full of handouts to foreign governments and non existent woke causes
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:26 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Just for shits and giggles, watch the reaction to this:quote:It seems possible that someone in Congress might think that containing Russian aggression is in the best interest of the United States.
“The 80s called and want their foreign policy back”
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:26 am to CitizenK
quote:
75% of the GOP sides with giving Ukraine aid.
Of course, its our war. Ukranians are just the ones dying for it.
We love our politicians and bureaucrats!
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:27 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
We weren't "Isolationist." While youre at it, hows our interventionist policy been since 1960?
People need to top resorting to hyperbole to make a simple point.
What are you talking about? The phrase "Isolationist" was used at the time, and is commonly used by historians to describe US policies. Your argument is with history, not me. Here's a basic overview: The Week
Posted on 12/22/22 at 10:35 am to Buryl
quote:
What are you talking about? The phrase "Isolationist" was used at the time, and is commonly used by historians to describe US policies. Your argument is with history, not me. Here's a basic overview: The Week
All of the billions of dollars if not trillions spent on world scale ethylene crackers and LNG terminals will go belly up and the entire economies of Texas and Louisiana with them with isolationism. Global trade matters a LOT for the US economy, not just imports.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News