America should be Neutral not Isolationist

I am convinced that the history books in our schools are so distorted that people have a mindset of being programmed into thinking one way. A great case in point is the Civil War. Some people think the United States is so infallible and will never break up. The only thing is that there is nothing in our laws and Constitution that state individual states cannot leave the Union. If there is something written about it, it is very vague. The Civil War was nothing more than Lincoln's Doctrine. In the North, slavery issue was not on the table until towards the end of the war. In the future, if things do not change for the better in the country, I can see states and/or regions eventually wanting to break away to start new countries. It happened to the Soviet Union and nobody would have thought they would ever break up.

The same distortion can be said about the subject of "Neutrality" or as most people like to call it "Isolationism". Another distortion. My definition of "Isolationism" is what North Korea practices. They have blocked themselves from most of the world and have diplomatic relations with only a handful of countries. Hermits practice "Isolationism".

The history books have geared us to think that the United States would be an isolationist country if we did not involve ourselves in alliances and sending troops worldwide. "What about Pearl Harbor?" you might say. Well, for starters, our military let alone our country should have never been in Hawaii in the first place. Until the end of the 19th Century, Hawaii was a sovereign country at one time until some American colonialists decided to take it over. The sugar cane was irresistable! In fact, America should have never taken overseas territories to begin with. When America fought Spain and took their colonies, we should have stayed only ong enough to help them establish their own countries and then left. I am still under the belief that we should not have overseas territories like Guam or Puerto Rico. George Washington would have never adovcated for us to have colonies. In fact, George Washington warned against the establishment of alliances with foreign countries. America was meant to be neutral. More like Switzerland and less like the Roman Empire which is what this country has become.

America can still engage in the world but does not have to have our armed forces spread all over the globe. It does not even have to be a part of NATO. In fact, after the end of the Soviet Union, America should have pulled out of NATO. It serves no real purpose anymore except for in Europe. I think America would get more respect in the world if weren't so biased in our foreign policy in a certain part of the World where conflicts have been raging for centuries. America would have more respect in the world if we concentrated on humanitarian causes worldwide and at home. We can still have a strong defense and military but without alliances or intervention abroad. It is possible.

I would not call what I advocate "Isolationism" but "Neutrality". I fear that for all our actions world wide and even at home, this country is in deep trouble. Unless things change, our country will be consigned to the history books. Neutrality and more humanitarianism will go a long way.


John

Why hogwash?



John

Now, finish him off with a boldface "piffle!" to the forehead!

Is there a full moon out tonight? This has been a strange night on DU.



John

From a rule-of-thumb, folklore perspective, the "full moon"
is 3 nights long. This is the third night, normally a "wind down"
night for werewolves and "LUNA-tics"......

BUT: it's the first full moon after the longest "Mercury in retrograde"
period in centuries, so you just gotta expect the unexpected....or
at least the "seldom seen".

Combine those two factors, and tonight is actually the last best
chance for LUNA-cy to burst forth from repressed & hidden sources
that it's gonna have for a VERY long time.

And some of it has done that.

I agree with you.

And I'll toss a "recommended" over my
shoulder as a diversion to cover my exit.

recommended.

Just to add some facts.

http://www.eisenhowerinstitute.org/programs/globalpartnerships/securityandterrorism/coalition/usandnato/NATOatFiftyBook/Kober.htm


http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm


John

If I recall correctly, our "Founding Fathers" considered
foreign entaglements as something to be avoided.........

Now, I certainly can't say I stand on par with THOSE guys.

I've certainly never successfully taken up arms against my
G*D-appointed KING, (YET)....
nor have I ever forged a mighty democratic nation from 13
backwater colonies filled with just about everyone so undesireable
that they had been politely asked to leave the MAP OF THE KNOWN WORLD
or be executed...

But I have learned a thing or two about PEOPLE in my 38 years.
I never WANTED to, but they're hard to avoid, people...
they're EVERYWHERE I wanna be.

And one conclusion I have come to, time and again: other people's
problems are best left to be resolved by "other people".

The thing is, I'd love to see America go neutral, but that would take a lot of effort on our part. We'd have to eliminate about 90% of our government spy agencies (you know - CIA, FBI, NSA, etc). Then we would have to eliminate the drug war, the Iraq War, and any other secret wars we might be involved in.

To remove all of the people who run the military/industrial complex from their positions of power,


John

I honestly believe that, a thousand years from now,
Carlin will quite properly be regarded as one of the
most brilliantly insightful PHILOSOPHERS of our era.

Because he -IS-.

We all know what a "fable" is...and that word is inextricably
tied to a fellow named Aesop.
In his day, Aesop was just a clever SLAVE with a knack for
telling memorable stories. But he touched upon many TRUTHS
with his stories, and we all know his name today.

CARLIN will one day stand alongside him in the Pantheon of Greats.

HUMOR is TRUTH, only FASTER.

Pure genius. I agree, Carlin is awesome.

For example: Rwanda or Sudan (if intervention were to happen). In order to render aid, you must decide who is attacking who, and render aid on the "right" side of it. It would also apply to rendering aid on the behalf of starving, sick citizens of a nation ripped off by their leaders.

In life, I find being "neutral" to be without conviction. No one is truly and honestly neutral.

First of all, you've got factual errors in your essay. One is that although there's nothing in the Constitution about States leaving the Union, there are opinions from SCOTUS, and opinions from SCOTUS are Constitutional law. Secondly, to state as a blanket assertion that the slavery issue was not on the table in Northern states until the end of the war is wrong. In my state alone, the issue of slavery was of paramount importance. It was the first state to abolish slavery, and that position was encoded in its Constitution, written in 1777, before Vermont even joined the Union.

And no, it's not possible to remain neutral, or not to have alliances, and I don't know that it's even desirable.

What will the states do among the ruins of the late great United States? Parish as well? Some people will be calling for their state's secession eventually. The U.S. has just gotten too big and we have such a mindset that we have some God-given right to hold sway on the World. The reality is that we do not and we are not the only country on the planet. We are losing the great experiment big time.



John