At least I know what trashy and slutty mean, genius. Stop throwing stones because you're not qualified, dude. You know what I meant.
The concept is all over our Consititution, brah, read it. At least I know what a synonym is. Bruh. Read a dictionary.
bullshit with the personal attacks, bruh. I just showed you that the Swiss have armed troops on the ground in Kosovo. That's, by definition, "intervening." Let's not. Let's take USA, 1914 or even 1940. Both were trading all over the world, yet had an "Isolationist" military policy. So you're the one with comprehension problems? And what the hell is "slightly interventionist?" The milquetoast way of saying "I want to appease the peaceniks, but I know that that's ivory-tower utopian horseshit?" I know much better than you about Switzerland's foreign policy. They think they're doing just fine. Just because they don't meet your floating definitions in order to help you win a losing debate doesn't mean I like or dislike how they do it.
And by definition they are not "neutral" then. Lol why don't you stop using that term then? Hypocrite. Well Denny proved you are uneducated then. It means a pro-free-trade policy. It means you're not fucking slick, since people know that Gary Johnson and Switzerland are "neutral". Apparently you don't recall your own floating definitions. I love Switzerland's foreign policy, I'm glad we agree on that. They are known as non-interventionist despite all the whining you do.
Here, I'll help you out a bit, bruh...you're kind of out of your element. Look up things like the 1935 Neutrality Acts, Senator Nye (who might've been Maris' grandfather, for all their views on the "Merchants of Death" spiel). Roosevelt's Chautauqua speech: , followed by the 1941 State of the Union: I mean, who the hell is FDR when you get to make the definition for Gary Johnson, right, bruh?
Let's recap your bitchy post: 1. Switzerland is not "non-interventionist", but they are "neutral" and "isolationist". LOL ok dude. 2. Gary Johnson is not known as a non-interventionist, but he's an isolationist? And Isolationist is a synonym of non-interventionist? What the fuck are you rambling about now?
What does this prove? Face it dude, you're pouting and have already contradicted yourself. Denny's post was pretty damn clear.
All I said was that they have a strict neutrality policy, and armed troops on the ground in Kosovo. Whatever you want to call that, those are the "facts." I don't have the first clue who Gary Johnson is or why I should care. I haven't brought his name up other than to say you seem to be making definitions for him. You and Denny seem to have a non-historical view of isolationism/non-intervention...which kinda sucks in a discussion, b/c you're not playing by the definitions that the rest of the world does. You brought up Switzerland, bruh, and I showed you how they have troops on the ground in Kosovo, violating Paragraph One of Denny's definition. I brought up Roosevelt, b/c his was the last administration that attempted to follow this isolationist/non-interventionist policy you seem to be advocating. And I showed how even he came to the realization (almost a year before Pearl Harbor) that it was stupid and immoral.
Did you look them up? Do you have any idea what those are? Damn, bruh...I can give it to you, but I can't make you read. I commend you on your ability to not pay attention and sling personal attacks in order to think you're correct. At some point (maybe with age? Or doing more than writing papers on world affairs) perhaps you'll see that being wrong is ok, sometimes.
this conversation is reminding me of the Harvard kid in Good Will Hunting. You spout off some phrase you heard in class, Ed shows you you're wrong, you tell him to shut the fuck up. You spout off something you heard about the Swiss, and don't realize that others who've worked with the Swiss military know a bit better than you do what's going on. Then you say "you're not that fucking slick" a few times. Then you seem to applaud Denny's definitions, while not knowing what FDR's policy changes leading to war in the 30's were, the historical precedents for them, or why they changed ("Morality" being one of them). And then when you were given the material to make yourself a bit smarter about it, you ignored it to say "what does that prove?" Am I going to be selling your kids fries on the way to your ski trip, bruh?
Brian, How many wars were there in Europe before Woodrow Wilson? Or before Teddy Roosevelt? How did they manage without our blood and treasure! And for the record, I've posted relevant sections of the Constitution that specify that Treaties we enter into are the supreme law of the land. NATO is a treaty obligation, but it's also a scam because we basically are NATO. The UN is a treaty obligation as well, but we and the two nations we conquered in WW II make up over 40% of the funding for it. I'd be fine with sending < 1,000 troops on peacekeeping missions due to our treaty obligations. It's a different thing than providing 2.5M armed forces and bullying the members into doing what we want to do (Kosovo). I differ with your view of Roosevelt. He was desperate for a way out of the economic malaise brought on by Keynes, saw the Fascists had gotten out of their Great Depression much sooner (wanted to emulate that), and baited the Japanese into attacking so he could take us to War.
Face it dude, you contradicted yourself. Either Switzerland is neutral or they aren't neutral. You can't whine like that and expect me to let you off the hook. In your rush to whine about the way I described Switzerland, you made yourself look like a fucking hypocrite. I love it. I love it that you don't know who he is, that is funny to me. Gary Johnson is known as a "non-interventionist" even if he wants to intervene in some small skirmishes. I use a pragmatic definition of "non-interventionist", just like you do with "neutral". And Libertarian used to mean Socialist. And Liberal means Socialist now. Your little history lesson means jack to us. Denny made it crystal clear that isolationist implies protectionism. And the way you define "isolationist" is like heaven to us anyway. Nah nigguh I don't think so. "For the record, Switzerland is neutral, not non-interventionist. They've sent armed troops to Kosovo, and conduct military exercises to other countries." Try again, son. Not only does this make zero sense, it shows why you have no credibility. You are crazy dude, we believe in self defense. Lol.
I'm not sure where you're going with this. After the wars of German unification there was about 50 years of "peace" in Europe prior to WWI. But we'd been "intervening" in Latin America ever since the Monroe Doctrine. There's validity here, but let me ask this from a military perspective. If you send over 1000 troops on a peacekeeping mission that, in all likelihood, needed 5000 or 10000 or 20000, and those troops were either a) killed or b) placed under the command of a foreign leader b/c he brought 1100 troops to the table, are you ok with those outcomes? Do you not honor your obligations, then? B/c that's a very large factor in how we deploy. Look at Libya (Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR)...we helped with ships and missiles and planes, but we didn't set foot in Libya, we didn't have any of our planes go over Libya Territory, and we didn't place any of our troops under Canadian General Bouchard's command. Look up the restrictions we put on the Marines in Beirut in the early 80's, and the firestorm that came down b/c it looked like we didn't have enough Marines with enough security to do "peacekeeping" operations as "neutral" observers.
I'm sorry to inform you but Stalin killed about 50 million people, you can stop talking about how great we were in World War 2.
Hmm I don't think so, Ed O's syntax was poor in our last discussion. So I thought it was funny that this time he was all high and mighty. But the difference is, Matt Damon understands what a thesaurus is.
Guh. This'll be my last one, because I can't hang with stoned college kids spouting off stuff they think they heard a professor say once. I'll use words maybe you can understand. 1) You brought up Switzerland. They have a strict non-neutrality policy. The have armed fucking troops on the fucking ground in fucking Kosovo, which is another fucking country from fucking Switzerland. Therefore, armed fucking Swiss troops are intervening in a situation in Kosovo to stop people from killing each other. Therefore, they are a) neutral and b) intervening with armed troops in another fucking country's problems. I can't state it any clearer than that. There's no fucking self-defense....no fucking "trade sanctions" or anything. 2) While I respect Denny's view, your insistence with him that "isolationism" = "protectionism" hasn't been valid for at least 70 years. Sorry about that. Gotta find a new word. 3) I just read Gary's blog about reduction in defense spending. While I'm all for smart ways of doing so, his plans have zero basis in analysis . Here are more from his website: It seems (aside from not being updated in at least 5 months) that Gary wants to re-evaluate European (but not Japanese or Korean?) deployments, make use of alliances, and still "protect national interests." If someone is threatening our "national interests", is it "intervention" to take action to protect them?
I'm fine with the idea of peacekeeping missions, but not public sector peacekeeping missions. Also your world war 2 claims are fascinating but I am skeptical about conspiracy theories. I think we were simply attacked by a bad nation.
