• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McCain slams GOP hopefuls' 'isolationism'

B

BDBoop

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
9,800
Reaction score
2,719
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
McCain slams GOP hopefuls' 'isolationism' - CNN.com

Asked about a threat by House Speaker John Boehner to consider cutting funding for U.S. involvement in the NATO-led military mission, McCain, R-Arizona, responded, "I was more concerned about what the candidates in New Hampshire the other night said," referring to a CNN debate among seven people seeking the Republican presidential nomination.

"This is isolationism," McCain said. "There's always been an isolationist strain in the Republican Party, the Pat Buchanan wing of our party. But now it seems to have moved more center stage, so to speak."

If former President Ronald Reagan had watched the debate, McCain said, he "would be saying that's not the Republican Party of the 20th century and now the 21st century. That is not the Republican Party that has been willing to stand up for freedom" for people all over the world.
Click to expand...

:bravo: :clap: :bravo:
 
First and foremost, he lost for a reason. That being said, we have no business in Libya and very little if any in Afghanistan. It would save a lot of money if the troops were brought home.
 
I could go for some more isolationism...maybe some more offshore balancing and a little less primacy. I'm on Boehner's side for this one.
 
Also, they really don't even know who the rebels in Libya represent. The same people who are defending Obama's decision to go into Libya are the same people that bashed Bush for going into Iraq. The difference is that Bush had congressional backing.
 
Any feedback on the portion of the article I actually quoted, which the title reflects?
 
DashingAmerican said:
Also, they really don't even know who the rebels in Libya represent. The same people who are defending Obama's decision to go into Libya are the same people that bashed Bush for going into Iraq. The difference is that Bush had congressional backing.
Click to expand...

Yeah and Obama has UN backing, which to the citizens of planet Earth, for which I am one, is good enough for me.

Fully fledged invasions of nations based on false pretenses is not ok with me..
 
Jetboogieman said:
Yeah and Obama has UN backing, which to the citizens of planet Earth, for which I am one, is good enough for me.

Fully fledged invasions of nations based on false pretenses is not ok with me..
Click to expand...

Yesterday, my friend kept responding "Nato backed, we're not on the ground. Nato backed, we're not on the ground. Therefore."

Road trips are much more interesting now that I live at DP. :D
 
I could go for some isolationism too. I'm tired of the US being the world's policemen and nanny, only to get blown up for it. Typically, I put a lot of weight into McCain's ideas. (Except for the Palin screw-up.) But I'm not too favorable of his opinion on this.

But let's get real here. Nobody in the GOP gives two-shakes of a lambstail about anyone's freedom's other than their own. War is about big business, corporate profit and lining the pockets of politicians. Period. If they cared about freedom, they would begin here at home. Instead, it's all about more power and government control with those guys. The irony is how they get into those positions of power duping the gullible with talk of "less government."
 
Jetboogieman said:
Yeah and Obama has UN backing, which to the citizens of planet Earth, for which I am one, is good enough for me.

Fully fledged invasions of nations based on false pretenses is not ok with me..
Click to expand...

It's no ok with me. I'm tired of policing the world. If the world wants someone to pick up the pieces then they should start doing it themselves and quit relying on the U.S. to do it for them. The last time I checked they have their own damn armies.
 
Isolationism is a suicidal position in the modern world. We are all too interconnected, with information, trade, and culture. We cannot be alone. It's impossible. Thinking that we are different than everyone else in the world is what ruined our international image, what set up the toxic financial climate that lead to a worldwide depression. We live in a global world. It cannot be denied.
 
DashingAmerican said:
It's no ok with me. I'm tired of policing the world. If the world wants someone to pick up the pieces then they should start doing it themselves and quit relying on the U.S. to do it for them. The last time I checked they have their own damn armies.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think the US should start focusing on helping people build there military technology up and pull itself out of Europe, Asia and the Middle East. I'm getting annoyed with freeriders.
 
Paschendale said:
Isolationism is a suicidal position in the modern world. We are all too interconnected, with information, trade, and culture. We cannot be alone. It's impossible. Thinking that we are different than everyone else in the world is what ruined our international image, what set up the toxic financial climate that lead to a worldwide depression. We live in a global world. It cannot be denied.
Click to expand...

Seems to be working pretty well for China. We don't see them out trying to save the world. They been puttin' money in the bank instead! OUR money.
 
Paschendale said:
Isolationism is a suicidal position in the modern world. We are all too interconnected, with information, trade, and culture. We cannot be alone. It's impossible. Thinking that we are different than everyone else in the world is what ruined our international image, what set up the toxic financial climate that lead to a worldwide depression. We live in a global world. It cannot be denied.
Click to expand...
It depends on what kind and level of isolationism you're talking about. I don't think anyone is arguing for complete isolationism, just some more military isolationism. Offshore balancing is a good strategy to me, but less military involvement does not mean that we can't continue economic and diplomatic interdependence.
 
BDBoop said:
Any feedback on the portion of the article I actually quoted, which the title reflects?
Click to expand...

It's not entirely isolationism.


i·so·la·tion·ism
   [ahy-suh-ley-shuh-niz-uhm, is-uh-]

–noun
the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.
Click to expand...


We still do business with them, we still attend U.N. councils, etc. Isolationism is withdrawing all forces into our borders and turning blind eyes and deaf ears to the world. I didn't hear any candidate say that we need to withdraw our troops from South Korea or Germany or any of the likes.
 
Last edited:
DashingAmerican said:
It's no ok with me. I'm tired of policing the world. If the world wants someone to pick up the pieces then they should start doing it themselves and quit relying on the U.S. to do it for them. The last time I checked they have their own damn armies.
Click to expand...

Thats perfectly reasonable and I can respect that, I'd probably feel the same way.

But if that's what you choose, then you're no longer the leader of the free world.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Thats perfectly reasonable and I can respect that, I'd probably feel the same way.

But if that's what you choose, then you're no longer the leader of the free world.
Click to expand...

I think we need a real leader of our own country before we can hope to lead the free world.
 
But let's get real here. Nobody in the GOP gives two-shakes of a lambstail about anyone's freedom's other than their own. War is about big business, corporate profit and lining the pockets of politicians. Period. If they cared about freedom, they would begin here at home. Instead, it's all about more power and government control with those guys. The irony is how they get into those positions of power duping the gullible with talk of "less government."
Click to expand...

No political party really wants less government. They all want MORE power.
 
theplaydrive said:
It depends on what kind and level of isolationism you're talking about. I don't think anyone is arguing for complete isolationism, just some more military isolationism. Offshore balancing is a good strategy to me, but less military involvement does not mean that we can't continue economic and diplomatic interdependence.
Click to expand...

Do you think the defense industry lobbyists are going to just let us stop dropping bombs without a fight? I remind you that we still have more dogs of war, in Washington, than you can count still stuffing their "campaign" funds with their money. (Not to mention the people in our society still willing to vote for these degenerates.) They got nothing to lose. You will rarely read about one of their children getting blown away.

Follow the money.
 
The only reason that the Republicans have a problem with our involvement boils down to one thing. Spell it with me: O-B-A-M-A I-S A D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T. That's it.

It's good to see McCain has gone back to thinking for himself.
 
When are the Republicans going to get a strong enough leader that they can stop referencing Reagan as if he was some kind of prophet?
 
rocket88 said:
The only reason that the Republicans have a problem with our involvement boils down to one thing. Spell it with me: O-B-A-M-A I-S A D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T. That's it.

It's good to see McCain has gone back to thinking for himself.
Click to expand...

Right? It is rather unusual to see the GOP taking a stand against a good ol' military conflict. That's so against their nature. And, I fear your right, it's all about politics. If it was GOP led, (or led by practically by anyone other than that black dude in the white house,) it would be cuban cigars all around! I think many Americans recognize that too.

However, I think they may got one right this time. (Go figure, the time they do get one right is when they go against their very own nature. One would think that might cause people to think but I digress.) Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Get out of Libya. Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, start taking care of our own. That's what Obama should do. To date, the only really positive thing I can say about Obama is that he is better than Bush. And that's not saying much.
 
DashingAmerican said:
First and foremost, he lost for a reason. That being said, we have no business in Libya and very little if any in Afghanistan. It would save a lot of money if the troops were brought home.
Click to expand...

We weren't in Afghanistan, before we were forced to invade Afghanistan. Maybe, had we been in Afhganistan, prior to 9/11, 9/11 might not have happened. Ultimately, how much more money and blood was spent, because we weren't proactive?
 
rocket88 said:
The only reason that the Republicans have a problem with our involvement boils down to one thing. Spell it with me: O-B-A-M-A I-S A D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T. That's it.

It's good to see McCain has gone back to thinking for himself.
Click to expand...

I don't oppose gettting involved in Libya. I'm opposed to the level at which we're getting involved in Libya, which is half ass; and I'm opposed to who we're getting involved with, which are AQ sympathetic orgs.
 
apdst said:
We weren't in Afghanistan, before we were forced to invade Afghanistan. Maybe, had we been in Afhganistan, prior to 9/11, 9/11 might not have happened. Ultimately, how much more money and blood was spent, because we weren't proactive?
Click to expand...
The ironic part of this post is that, as an isolationist country, we wouldn't have had to be proactive prior to 9/11 because al-Qaeda wouldn't have even wanted to attack us...since we wouldn't have been involved in their regional politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom