• 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'

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?

Al-Qaeda is far too spread out to honestly and realistically say that had we been in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 that the attrocities would never have happened.
 
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.

As a more isolationaist country, there would have been alot more than 3,000 people die on 9/11. Ever since The Big Lie, in 1967--where Egypt, Syria and Jordon reported seeing U.S. troops and aircraft fighting on Israel's side during the 6 Day war, the Muslims have hated us and there's nothing, at this point, that will change that.

Isolationism didn't revent WW2 and it wouldn't have prevented the GWT.
 
Al-Qaeda is far too spread out to honestly and realistically say that had we been in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 that the attrocities would never have happened.

Notice, I said, "maybe". I didn't make that statement with absolute certainty.
 
Notice, I said, "maybe". I didn't make that statement with absolute certainty.

True, I'm not entirely on the opposite side here. I just think the war in Afghanistan has become stagnant. Changes need to be made in order to continue or create an affective force there.
 

McCain is fundamentally wrong. The Republican party has been anything but isolationist and the current GOP candidates fall within the geographic paradigm the GOP has set for its vision of interventionism. There is little dispute amongst GOPers that the US should defend Israel from the big bad Muslims at all costs. If it is an African nation? The debate rages for months. Case and point: Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, Liberia etc. These candidates are no different. They are in favor of intervening in the US' historical battlegrounds.
 
Last edited:
McCain is fundamentally wrong. The Republican party has been anything but isolationist and the current GOP candidates fall within the geographic paradigm the GOP has set for its vision of interventionism. There is little dispute amongst GOPers that the US should defend Israel from the big bad Muslims at all costs. If it is an African nation? The debate rages for months. Case and point: Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, Liberia etc. These candidates are no different. They are in favor of intervening in the US' historical battlegrounds.

Y'know Hatuey, for a liberal, you're pretty smart. :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
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.

Hey why not completely withdraw from the world? Give up your colonies in Guam, Puerto Rico and all the other islands you still occupy. Dump your bases in Germany, Spain, UK, South Korea, Japan, Diego Garcia and every where else ... would save you a ton of money and make a lot of people happy. And since you are doing that, then you dont need your massive military.. cut up the fleet!.. you only need the Coast Guard and they dont need carriers. And your bombers... who needs bombers if your Air Force is only for patroling US soil! Nukes.. dump them too.. since you are isolated, then who would want to attack you with nukes?

Oh and while you are doing your isolationist thing... how about stop buying goods from overseas? You know... basically everything non food wise?

And while you at it, why not give all the blue states the finger and cut them off.. Bye bye California and New York and hello the Christian States of America!!!!!

And in the sane and real world.. Isolationism has never ever lead to anything good.
 
Hey why not completely withdraw from the world? Give up your colonies in Guam, Puerto Rico and all the other islands you still occupy. Dump your bases in Germany, Spain, UK, South Korea, Japan, Diego Garcia and every where else ... would save you a ton of money and make a lot of people happy. And since you are doing that, then you dont need your massive military.. cut up the fleet!.. you only need the Coast Guard and they dont need carriers. And your bombers... who needs bombers if your Air Force is only for patroling US soil! Nukes.. dump them too.. since you are isolated, then who would want to attack you with nukes?

Oh and while you are doing your isolationist thing... how about stop buying goods from overseas? You know... basically everything non food wise?

And while you at it, why not give all the blue states the finger and cut them off.. Bye bye California and New York and hello the Christian States of America!!!!!

And in the sane and real world.. Isolationism has never ever lead to anything good.

I dunno Petey. I think you might be on to something.
 
Hey why not completely withdraw from the world? Give up your colonies in Guam, Puerto Rico and all the other islands you still occupy. Dump your bases in Germany, Spain, UK, South Korea, Japan, Diego Garcia and every where else ... would save you a ton of money and make a lot of people happy. And since you are doing that, then you dont need your massive military.. cut up the fleet!.. you only need the Coast Guard and they dont need carriers. And your bombers... who needs bombers if your Air Force is only for patroling US soil! Nukes.. dump them too.. since you are isolated, then who would want to attack you with nukes?

Oh and while you are doing your isolationist thing... how about stop buying goods from overseas? You know... basically everything non food wise?

And while you at it, why not give all the blue states the finger and cut them off.. Bye bye California and New York and hello the Christian States of America!!!!!

And in the sane and real world.. Isolationism has never ever lead to anything good.
Actually, isolationism led to a lot of good to the United States. Prior to WWI and WWII, the United States was pretty isolationist and then we only got involved in both wars at the very end and watched everyone else destroy each other. Then we were left to contain a single power and now the US is the most powerful country in the world.

In all honesty, military isolationism could potential do the same thing for the US all over again since it would 1) Prevent military overstretch 2) Reduce/Eliminate anger at the US overseas for interventionism. However, since we gain a lot of influence by protecting people militarily, I think minimal military presence is good.
 
As a more isolationaist country, there would have been alot more than 3,000 people die on 9/11. Ever since The Big Lie, in 1967--where Egypt, Syria and Jordon reported seeing U.S. troops and aircraft fighting on Israel's side during the 6 Day war, the Muslims have hated us and there's nothing, at this point, that will change that.

Isolationism didn't revent WW2 and it wouldn't have prevented the GWT.

No. As a more isolationist country, there wouldn't have even been a 9/11 since al-Qaeda would have had no motive to attack us.

WW2 helped the the United States a lot, so my point stands.
 
I agree with McCain. Recently, I posted the following in this thread that speaks to this very isisue:

While I don't believe the President alone should have the power to declar war, I do believe he should be able to take action, including militarily, on behalf of peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts. We all agree that one basic human right in this country is the right to keep and bear arms. We preserve this right so that we can keep a tyrannical government at bay. We believe in democracy, freedom and liberty. As such, shouldn't we do whatever we can to ensure people of other nations have these same rights?

If you disagree with the above on the right to bear arms in defense of tyranny and to ensure democracy, then I think it's fair to say you were at least 50% against the War in Iraq because that was part of why former President GW Bush said he took this country to war over there...to spread democracy. (The other 50% was to stop a potential terrorist threat against the acquisition of NBC weapons. Can't say we did that definitively because by published reports no such threat ever existed. The intel was false on that matter. But I digress...) That's what Sen. McCain is saying; you should help a country whenever you can however you can in its attempt to liberate itself from tyranny in their pursuit of a democratic state. Reagan wouldn't have accepted such behavior from his party as President. Neither should you as so-called Conservatives. After all, you claim you are against tyranny and that democrasy is something very much worth fighting for. If you can argue against what the Libyan rebels are fighting for, then maybe you should check your patriotic beliefs at the nearest boarder crossing.

Sidenote: I know, I know..."we don't know exactly who make up these rebels?," towhich I say, "Why should it matter to us? Our job is to help a country obtain their freedom from tyranny without fighting that fight for them. Once they attain that freedom it's up to them to sustain it. I understand the fear here, however. If the country comes under the rule in the wrong hands we could be right back over there sooner rather than latter. That's true; however, it's also why you let NATO lead this mission...to ensure an international mediator monitors the situation with Libya's neighboring states also overseeing matters. Remember: The Arab League consists mostly of our Arab allies. If we can't trust our allies even those in the Middle-East to do right, who can we trust over there? Iran? Pakistan? They're the only countries in the Middle-East who are not our allies but aren't tearing themselves totally apart internally currently with civil war (although that day may be coming soon the way things are going in both countries). But the point is, every other Middle-Eastern country that is not our allies have internal turmoil. The only two that are not aren't our friends.

IMO, I think people need to second guess which side of freedom, democracy and humanitarianism they really stand on.
 
Last edited:
No. As a more isolationist country, there wouldn't have even been a 9/11 since al-Qaeda would have had no motive to attack us.

WW2 helped the the United States a lot, so my point stands.

There's zero evidence to support any of that. Losing a half million Americans is hardly proof that WW2, "helped the United States a lot".
 
Hey why not completely withdraw from the world? Give up your colonies in Guam, Puerto Rico and all the other islands you still occupy. Dump your bases in Germany, Spain, UK, South Korea, Japan, Diego Garcia and every where else ... would save you a ton of money and make a lot of people happy. And since you are doing that, then you dont need your massive military.. cut up the fleet!.. you only need the Coast Guard and they dont need carriers. And your bombers... who needs bombers if your Air Force is only for patroling US soil! Nukes.. dump them too.. since you are isolated, then who would want to attack you with nukes?

Oh and while you are doing your isolationist thing... how about stop buying goods from overseas? You know... basically everything non food wise?

And while you at it, why not give all the blue states the finger and cut them off.. Bye bye California and New York and hello the Christian States of America!!!!!

And in the sane and real world.. Isolationism has never ever lead to anything good.

When we do all that, the world will implode and the United States will have to commit millions of men, losing a half millions+ putting it all back together, again.
 
There's zero evidence to support any of that. Losing a half million Americans is hardly proof that WW2, "helped the United States a lot".
What are you saying. WWII not only helped the US economy, it also destroyed most European powers, enabled the United States to rebuild Germany and Japan as democracies dependent on the US and left the United States and Soviet Union to compete for the top spot, which the United States won. The US benefited a lot from WWII, it took the world from multi-polarity to bipolarity and finally unipolarity. Study history and use logic for once.
 
There you have it, folks -- the world is held together by the glue of American military intervention!

How did things work out when there was no American intervention?
 
What are you saying. WWII not only helped the US economy, it also destroyed most European powers, enabled the United States to rebuild Germany and Japan as democracies dependent on the US and left the United States and Soviet Union to compete for the top spot, which the United States won. The US benefited a lot from WWII, it took the world from multi-polarity to bipolarity and finally unipolarity. Study history and use logic for once.

WW2 didn't help the American economy.
 
WW2 didn't help the American economy.

C'mon, man you don't really mean that. Seriously? World War II was basically a huge wartime stimulus, and a hell of a lot more effective than FDR's New Deal even.
 
Actually, isolationism led to a lot of good to the United States. Prior to WWI and WWII, the United States was pretty isolationist and then we only got involved in both wars at the very end and watched everyone else destroy each other. Then we were left to contain a single power and now the US is the most powerful country in the world.

You only became the most powerful country because you had your industrial base intact after the two wars.... and you used that to "influence" all other countries with your products.
 
You only became the most powerful country because you had your industrial base intact after the two wars.... and you used that to "influence" all other countries with your products.
There are a lot of reasons we became the most powerful country. Staying out of other people's politics for such a long time was one of them.
 
How did things work out when there was no American intervention?

It's kind of hard to make that estimation, since it's been so long since we stayed out of someone else's business -- except for Africa, we've stayed out of there for the most part.

There are also examples of interventions in the past that flowered into the problems of today.

We're not evil, it's just the law of unintended consequences.
 
C'mon, man you don't really mean that. Seriously? World War II was basically a huge wartime stimulus, and a hell of a lot more effective than FDR's New Deal even.

Almost everything was better than FDR's New Deal. FDR's New Deal was the some of the first steps in the entitlement society America has become.
 
There is a difference between isolation and nonintervention. Cold War relic Buchanan wants to lock all the doors and pretend the rest of the world doesnt exist. Dr. Paul wants to be to trade with other nations but not get militarily involved in other nations' problems.
 
Back
Top Bottom