Don't mean to start a big debate or anything, but...

[Dracos]

Also i would like to contest that people will not complain should the US not involve itself in the rest of the world. The French and British seemed pretty pissed that the US was sitting on its hands for years during both world wars and nobody liked the slowness with which the US involved itself in finding a solution to the German post-war depression in the early 20ies. And then imagine how people would feel if they already have the perception that the US has created the mess they are standing in now or the reaction of countries like Iceland that depends on the US for defense. For that matter how do you think the Taiwanese and the South Koreans will attack if the US military just pack up and leave? Not doing anything when you sit on the amount of power the US does is exactly the same as doing something in regards to people being pissed and it will likely happen in a way that leaves the US weaker and many regions of the world even more unstable.

First of all, I said they might complain, but it wouldn't be a strong criticism. They wished we had gotten involved in WW2 sooner, but most people didn't hate us for it. Second of all, that's a bad example anyway. If Ron Paul had been President, he would have allowed Congress to rule on the matter, just like the constitution say, and if the Congress voted to go to war we would have. This is how things should be done.

So far as, "not doing anything is the same as doing something," I have no choice but to laugh. You can't see it, but trust me, I am. Since you were the one the bring up the WW2 example, let me ask you a simple question. How many Europeans hate the Swiss? When Germany was taking over Europe, the Swiss were in a position to help. They were in the region, they have a large military thanks to mandatory participation, and they even had a vested interest in it as their neighbors were the ones who were being conquered. They could have helped significantly, but did not, and no one gives it a second thought. This is how the world works. Doing something costs money. Not doing something doesn't. Doing something is serious grounds for anger and hatred. Not doing something is grounds for annoyance. If you really want to debate this, I'll be happy to show you some examples, but I just don't feel that it's worth either of our time unless you press the issue.

Now, as far as Iceland, Taiwan, South Korea, (And to add a few) Saudi Arabia, Isreal, Japan and Germany, countries that we have taken it upon ourselves to defend, how much of the world should we stretch our armies across? Stretching an army too thin is the number one reason for empires being defeated militarily, the most basic key to a strong national defense is to have plenty of troops ready to deploy in defense. Having our troops around the world, to the point where even the border guard is in Iraq instead of defending our country, obviously weakens our defense immensely. And the more pressing question is that of funding and troops. How long can we keep our troops in these countries? How long should we defend others and ship billions of dollars overseas? I think it makes sense that these countries should defend themselves like every other nation. We cannot afford to defend them. The simple question is, why should we weaken our national defense and bankrupt ourselves to defend other nations who would likely be perfectly able to defend themselves. They merely don't because they have us to take care of them. Besides, we are friends with these nations and we would be engaging in diplomacy. We could make it clear through diplomatic means that we would not stand for these countries being invaded. North Korea wouldn't invade South Korea with us looming over them, even if we had moved our troops out. And in the mean time, our national defense would be boosted and South Korea would get its own military to defend itself.

And the way the US truly throws its weight around is not the military, it is the economy. It is trade policies and financial support that keeps dictators in power, not American forces. If anything the American forces weakens said dictators by breeding public dissent. If this power is kept then the holes that the US army has plugged, even though those holes have in many cases been created by the US army, will spring open, increasing instability without the US actually stopping its interference in the affairs of other countries. Without it the US will either supporting dictators through trade, at least as long as free trade is upheld, and it will lose much of its diplomatic leverage making it harder if not impossible to do anything through diplomacy. In the end the net result will be political isolationism, even if the money flows freely. The US simply has such an economic weight that any piece of trade policy, even the decission not to have any, on the part of the federal government will result in the US getting involved in the affairs of other countries and dictating their behavior. Either by still deciding who is worthy of trade and who isn't or by accepting any behavior by any group as long as it has money.

Okay, this is the worst slippery slope argument I've ever seen. You really like your fallacious arguments, don't you? First of all, Ron Paul would have some tariffs. This alone provides large amounts of diplomatic leverage. Second of all, giving out free money to the world doesn't help us. Cut off foreign aid unless we have a really good reason. Third, you are assuming that the entire world will explode if we go away. Of course, this is ignoring the fact that things aren't exactly peaceful now. Exactly what do you expect to happen that isn't already happening? Israel isn't going to be invaded, they're a nuclear power. Saudi Arabia may overthrow their dictator, but I'm not sure that would be a bad thing...

Anyway, Free Trade with people is not supporting them. On the other hand, sanctions directly hurt people. Not governments, so much, but people. Do you think that Cuba being cut off from America is hurting Castro with his palaces or the common person more? Claiming that free trade is bad because we may trade with bad people is just ridiculous and even ignores the facts of the matter.

And as a final side note then i am not suggesting that the Libertarian party is some secret cabal controlling wikipedia. The mere suggestion of that is ludicrous. What i am suggesting is that through repeated use of the word in public discourse then Libertarians, and possibly other groups as well, has had luck in planting the word non-interference as a substitute for isolationism. The same way that nationalists in the post-second world war period has had luck in selling patriotism as something different than nationalism, despite the two words previously being synonymous and the content of them is still largely the same just with a different normative judgement.

Once again, I refer you to the root word.

i·so·late /v. ˈaɪsəˌleɪt; n., adj. ˈaɪsəlɪt, -ˌleɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. ahy-suh-leyt; n., adj. ahy-suh-lit, -leyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -lat·ed, -lat·ing, noun, adjective
–verb (used with object)
1. to set or place apart; detach or separate so as to be alone.

If you talk to people, travel, and trade with people, you are not alone, you are not isolated. This is a very simple concept. And now you're trying to imply that those diabolical libertarians were secretly "planting" the word. Once again, can I have some of what you're smoking ? Whatever it is, it's got to be strong...

[Mitera Nikkou]

Wait... why isn't Stephen Colbert on the poll? I'm voting for him, gotta love write -ins. And I really hope he pulls out a victory in the Marvel universe...

Well, if Colbert were to really become Huckabee's running mate, then a vote for Huckabee would be a vote for Colbert. Hmmmm... Sounds close to something I heard on the show tonight. <_<

[Christina Anikari]

Let's end the Japan thing. You claim to have done research, yet you don't even know who the ruler of Japan was. The Emperor was wholly ceremonial in the Edo period. Also yes there were Europeans in Japan in 1650, and i don't think i have ever claimed that there were none, just that Japan was not a significant factor in the minds of Europeans and you will find plenty of support for that assertion if you look around a little. As for the banishment of people who traveled outside Japan there was one quite important corollary to that it was that it excepted samurai and peasants in the service a series of specific clans, the only one i can remember being Satsuma the rulers of Nagasaki. Other clans were the ones possessing the islands in the Tsushima strait between Japan and Korea and the one ruling the northern tip of Honshu and the southern tip of Hokkaido and the clan ruling the southern end of Kyushu. The Satsuma clan had the monopoly on direct interaction with the Dutch, the one on the Tsushima Islands on interaction with Korea, the northern clan with interaction with the Ainos and the one in the south with interaction with the Ryukyus, modern-day Okinawa. These restrictions on trade were not meant to cut the country off from the rest of the world, it was feudal privilege and mercantilistic economic policy, just like many similar restrictions placed in absolutist France.

As for Japanese economic interaction with China it is very true that it did not take the form of direct trade, however that was not because of a Japanese policy but because of the Chinese policy of not allowing foreign trade other than in the form of tribute and gifts given in return. So instead Chinese and Japanese merchants met on the Ryukyus and exchanged goods, particularly silver there. This trade is taken as a basic fact by every single historian writing the history of Qing dynasty China as it was the primary source of Chinese silver, among other places you can find it spelled out in Cambridge Illustrated History of China, written by Patricia Ebrey. It is all quite thoroughly documented in both Japanese and Chinese literature, as was the subjugation of the Hokkaido tribes of Ainos and the trade in Tsushima, which definitely was more limited than the trade with the Ryukyus, is quite documented in Japanese and Korean sources. Also i am sorry to tell you this, but for complex historical topics i prefer scholarly journals like Den Jyske Historiker (a Danish non-translated journal, sorry about that) and historians specialized in Japanese history like my old teacher at the University of Aarhus Annette Skovsted Hansen, try writing her if you are so damn persistent in disbelieving me.

Completely isolating a country cannot be done, nor has anybody ever tried it. The most that has been tried has been limiting contact with the rest of the world to controlled channels and then trying to crack down on smuggling and even that has mostly been tried in the context of largely self-supporting countries, like feudal Japan. Even before the Closed Country Edict, which did indeed get passed following a rebellion led by Christian samurai, Japan had not been as heavily involved in trade or politics with neighboring countries as most European states were, just like China, Korea or the Ryukyus hadn't. East-Asia simply had less transnational trade than Europe because the countries were larger and more internally diverse.

Nikkou answered this well. He is addressing alliances for the purpose of defense or war. We would still be willing to act on matters of global importance.

6
And i ask again, how would you do that without interfering in the internal life of other countries? That is what foreign policy is all about. Interfering in the behavior of other countries, what else would you negotiate for them to do? Also every single economic alliance ever made has included defensive clauses and why is that? Because your own economic interests will get involved to such a degree that you cannot afford not to interfere. You have to be naive or hugely populistic to claim that you can do diplomatic solutions without enforcing your will on others. "Also an American character free of all foreign attachments" does not sound like it is a purely military expression, in fact it sounds like a desire to avoid being influenced by foreign culture. Ron Paul might not mean it like that, but then it was just a bad choice of quote.

And i never said that isolationism has never existed. I said that the radical interpretation of the term isolationism that you are using is not a valid or sensible position. Isolationism as it is defined in scholarly discourse has most certainly existed, with modern North Korea as an obvious example. Or Edo period Japan or the French response to the Depression. You just need to separate your own extreme definition of isolationism from the one i have clearly and several times through my previous post stated that i have used. Isolationism has existed, just not in the way you define it. And i know that Ron Paul is a libertarian and i don't believe i ever stated that he was a mercantilist, which is the term for someone who wants to cut off foreign trade. What i have said is that he is an isolationist. However in many cases, but not all, mercantilism follows isolationism and is often a sign that isolationism is alive. Ron Paul is not one of those cases. I do agree that i could have been clearer on this however.

As for whether it would or would not be a strong criticism of the US if the US just withdraw from political involvement in issues around the world, then you do not really argue for why it would not be a strong criticism. The reason it would be is because the US has been so active in the world already. I would also like to point you towards Latin America where most if not all of the resentment towards the US originates in the US not having done anything about the local dictators and instead trading with them. Mind you it was a long time ago it was like that, now the US is much more involved in either supporting or trying to topple dictators. Also the one reason the British and French didn't hate the US during the early parts of the two world wars was because it was a bad idea to do when you needed the military aid of the US. Now imagine how the British and French would feel if the Americans had never entered the war. Though i don't have any hard statistics to back it, the common complaints against the US in Europe are just as much about what the US doesn't do as it is about what the US does. People complain both that the US is in Iraq and that does nothing about the environment. Both complaints are equally common and equally strong.

As for your Swiss example then you are about to make me burst out laughing at the idea that Switzerland could have done anything more than protect its neutrality and even that was only due to the difficult and easily defensible terrain of Switzerland. Yes, Switzerland has a fairly big army. Denmark did back then too. So did Norway and Poland. The mandatory participation was something every single European country had back in the day. The French army numbered millions so did the British and the German and the Russian. Arrayed against the German army at the outbreak of the war was more troops than the entire Swiss population. And those troops came from much more industrially powerful nations with more advanced weaponry and they got defeated with only one of them only being able to hold out due to significant American financial aid and cheap access to fighter planes. The Americans, the French, the British and the Russians were the only nations able to deploy enough forces in the European theater to stop Germany and even so it took their combined power to stop the Germans. And this is not even entering into the fact that people knew they could not expect aid from Switzerland given that Switzerland hadn't gotten itself politically involved with the rest of Europe since the 16th century...actually Switzerland is a fine example of a politically isolationist country.

Ummm...you do realize that my argument about the countries being defended wasn't based on you having a moral obligation to do so, but on the fact that those countries would be pissed if you stopped defending them, right? I mean only two things protect the sovereignty of Taiwan, the weakness of the Chinese navy and the fact that the US has pledged to defend the island and the weakness of the Chinese navy can in large parts be attributed to the second reason. Also a quick note, no country except for the UK actually possesses the military capability to strike at the US due to the strength of the American navy and the weakness of the Canadian and Mexican armies.

So treating all foreign governments equally and not cutting off any of them, while abstaining from using your military, will give you any ability to lead diplomacy in which way exactly? What leverage would you use? You are really taking idealism to the utmost extreme here. A rebellion in Saudi Arabia would lead to civil war or a revolution followed by a new dictatorship, things wouldn't just become miraculously good. I am not saying that the US is using its economic or military power well, i could not say that as i truly, honestly believe that the US uses its power in both stupid and amoral ways. However i recognize that suddenly stopping ongoing uses of force will leave power vacuums that will be even worse. I am just arguing from the school of realist foreign policy, the one most common among political scientists. The immediate consequences will be that the simmering conflicts of the world will explode. The US support for Pakistani dictators suddenly disappearing would as far as i can tell lead to the freaking Taliban taking over a nuclear power that is in a simmering conflict with another nuclear power. It would lead to a breakdown of the tentative negotiations between the Koreas. The US stopping to use its power is the only thing worse than the US using it as poorly as it does today.

And if we are to go with the root word defining ideologies we are going to get some funny results. Nazism will apparently mean people walking about being social in a national context, whereas communism would mean something involving communities...so would communitarianism. Kubism would focus on 3D images of cubes, while expressionism would express something. Really going back to the root word to define a political or artistic ideology makes no sense at all. The root word gives a hint of the general direction, but nothing more. As for libertarians planting the word, of course they do. So does communists, liberals, conservatives, social democrats and members of every other ideology. Typically it isn't even intentionally or something they are aware of, they just need a term to define their views without using terms that have a fully negative ring to them. It is not a diabolical or subversive scheme at all, just a term that has been introduced by libertarians and through repeated use has won acceptance, even if it truly just means isolationism with a positive normative judgment.

Anyway this will be my last word. I am not going to bother with arguing more with you, especially not since you seem as intent on insulting me as you are on arguing your case.

[Dracos]

First, you said they traded heavily. Bald-faced lie, and I showed a source. Strike one. Second, you said Japan was quite open to influences from both China and Japan, but the Emperor was so afraid of European influence that he killed Christians en-mass and executed Europeans indiscriminately. Another bald-faced lie, strike two. Third, you said that Europeans never tried diplomacy, but the Emperor had European diplomats executed in Japan, meaning they obviously had. Strike three, you're out.

And I've already told you, like any term describing political policy, there are degrees. Japan was extremely isolationist, although not perfectly so. Once again, to find places that are entirely isolationist, you cannot look at powerful nations. It's just common sense that the bigger and more influential a nation is, the harder it is to keep from traveling, trading, and engaging in diplomacy.

As for engaging in political policy, a non-interventionist doesn't worry about the internal life of other nations unless there is a very compelling reason to do so. Obviously trade policy will impact other nations, and that's fine. We aren't afraid of the world, that's isolationists again. We just don't want to be forced to defend other countries forever, or think we should take it upon ourselves to ensure world peace.

Isolationism as it is defined in scholarly discourse has most certainly existed

You mean the one I'm talking about? Once again you're going back to your Libertarian conspiracy to change the word. Of course, you ignore the fact that this is what the word has historically meant. You also ignore the fact that our "radical definition," the one that Wikipedia defines, is based off of the root word, exactly as you'd expect. If you trade, talk, and travel, you are not isolated, simple fact. Therefore, why would a nation that trades, engages in diplomacy, and has its people travel around the world be isolationist? It wouldn't, and when this is so obvious, how could I not insult you? It's like pointing at the sky and insisting that it's bright orange. It's silly. You just didn't understand the term, but would rather concoct a conspiracy rather than admit you were wrong.

[Mitera Nikkou]

Alright, alright... That's quite enough. Not so much for the clash of arguments but more due to the historical portion, being that it's off-topic. (Personally I find neither all that insulting, but I'd rather that not continue, too.)

Here's my final piece in defending Ron Paul's policy. Non-intervention doesn't mean that we don't interfere with everything, thus becoming isolationist. Philosophically speaking, just existing is interfering, because what we do anywhere has an effect elsewhere, due to cause and effect.

As far as I can tell, non-interventionalism, according to Ron Paul's policy and the two quotes from Jefferson and Washington, is to act on our own needs instead of being led around this way and that by other nations because of their needs. It also means that we don't directly, and/or forcefully, impose our own desires on others. And since this mainly revolves around the Iraq war, at the present time, that means that we wouldn't have invaded, occupied, and imposed a democracy. Aside from the fact that we knew years ahead of time the kind of mess something like that would cause, here's a good example of how things have gone wrong without a non-interventionalistic policy: we support Iraq against Iran, despite Iraq being the aggressor, because we were dependent on Iraq maintaining its integrity; not too long after that the US plays a large role in attacking Iraq to take back Kuwait; and after that we (and other nations) held sanctions against Iraq, which contradicted our reason to support of Iraq in the war against Iran; and then we take it several steps further with the invasion of Iraq and the overthrowing of Saddam... so much for integrity and keeping the nation stabilized.

In a broader sense, I think non-interventionalism more or less dictates a neutral disposition. For an example, let's look at Switzerland, who I don't think has involved itself in any war in the last century, and perhaps longer, as far as I know. How well has that turned out?

All in all, Ron Paul isn't an isolationist, nor an extreme one. In my personal opinion, I think his foreign policy has merit for the kind of situations we face these days, when the US is disliked more and more for what it does than for what it doesn't do.

[Tiaiel]

Well as an outsider I am not that much informed as some of you are, but still I think that Obama wouldn't be able to win yet in America, Hillary is more likely to win if they send her in. But still there is the point that something like a war is going on and there may still be many voices who state that war isn't womans buisness.
Ron Paul isn't very much presented in our press(becouse he is not so special-neither black nor a woman). And if isolationism means that there will be less war in the end I think many people would like to hear that I think. By the way: only 32% of the Europeens think that a war can be justice(i think around 70 % do in america if I remember right)

[Kuroneko]

Ron Paul. I would go with Kucinich but he bailed. MSF has a more interesting mix of politics now @_@;;

[Kuroneko]

I can understand why people don't care, after all it is complex, dry and it is hard to figure out if you are in the right yourself. It is just the ability to seemingly fail to recognize its importance that puzzles me. I guess it is because people forget what it is about and just see politicians backstabbing each other.

People in general are shortsighted and tend to only focus on things that...

A) they can understand
B) they believe they can effect

Leaders world wide do their best to teach disempowerment to the people. In America they've done a fairly good job of turning Americans against their own best interests by convincing them that they only have two choices, both criminally corrupt and worth spitting on until you're throat is too dry to spit on them bastiches anymore than they've already been spat upon.

[Mendi-chan]

Changed to reflect changes in candidates.

Ralph Nader returns for the next election. Dun dun dunnn

[Mitera Nikkou]

Poor Nader. He's going to be disregarded, as always.

[Helel]

Poor Nader. He's going to be disregarded, as always.

About the only positive thing about Nader that I read in an article yesterday was that he's the oldest candidate. Kinda sad, really. I'm curious as to what kind of support he'll gather this time around.

[Anamnesis]

The candidates should be revealed only after their ideals have been voted for; I've noticed a trend where I live, that people are saying they won't vote for Obama because he's a black man, and how someone wouldn't vote for Hillary because she's a woman. This racist sexist douchebaggery has brought me to wit's end...If at all possible, we need to shrink the amount of sexism and racism being poured into elections...If the general population votes for an ideal rather than a person, what could go wrong? ._.

[Mendi-chan]

One more update to the poll.

Hey, I know that Huckabee dropped out (x_X Nooooooo!!!!), but did Ron Paul and Ralph Nader drop out to? My source for the candidates doesn't list them anymore, and I don't recall hearing that they resigned from the election.

[Mitera Nikkou]

I haven't heard from Ron Paul, either, but I imagine that he dropped out.

As for Ralph Nader, I think he's running unopposed for a third party. But I'm not sure how that works and if he's being denied in some fashion.

[Lanzerus]

the first vote has been cast, by me.

I personally don't care, because I dislike them all, The reason behind what i say is :

All Americans, my self included, have flaws and faults that make us imperfect to rule over each other; I say we should be allow to only control what we do and not care about what others do, that way our perfections exist, yet fail to exist at the same time.