Quote: Justme wrote in post #1

---

It has similarities to the isolationism of the 1920s, with the United States reduced to irrelevance on the global fringes, but that was a deliberate result of policy, while this... this product of ineptness coupled with ideology, is something you can scarcely put a name to.

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #2

---

Quote: Justme wrote in post #1

---

It has similarities to the isolationism of the 1920s, with the United States reduced to irrelevance on the global fringes, but that was a deliberate result of policy, while this... this product of ineptness coupled with ideology, is something you can scarcely put a name to.

---

I disagree. This (whatever you wish to call it) is deliberate, too.

It's exactly what you'd expect to get if you had the inhabitants of the Harvard faculty lounge running the country.

And I'd like to throw a related question out there for everyone to ponder:

In all my years of following this, I've always heard the term "isolationist" impugned and maligned. It's almost as if it's the worst thing you can call someone. (well, next to "racist", that is)

I'm pretty sure that the opposite of "isolationist" is "interventionist." So is that, then, the policy we are to follow? Interventionism?

And that's worked out just great, hasn't it? Especially in hell-holes like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #2

---

I disagree. This (whatever you wish to call it) is deliberate, too.

It's exactly what you'd expect to get if you had the inhabitants of the Harvard faculty lounge running the country.

---

I prefer the term "non-interventionist" to "isolationist." Most of our Founders understood this concept very well.

Zitat

---

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

---

George Washington, Farewell Address

Zitat

---

"peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

---

Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #4

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #2

---

I disagree. This (whatever you wish to call it) is deliberate, too.

It's exactly what you'd expect to get if you had the inhabitants of the Harvard faculty lounge running the country.

---

I disagree. This thing has spiraled way out of control for the Regime. They thought that throwing out that Red Line comment to win reelection wouldn't have repercussions. Fail. They thought they had Briton on board just because that is the way it has always been done. Fail. They thought that congress, including their sycophants, would be on board because that is the way it has always been. Fail. They thought that the GOP were nothing but Hawks and they would be on board. Fail. They thought the American people were in so in love with Zero and his brilliance that they would support his intelligent foreign policy, no matter how incompetent. Fail.

Every step of the way on this, you can see the Regime stunned and off kilter because of circumstances they thought they had in their control. Christ, now they have Putin mocking them in their house organ (New York Times). That probably have them in melt down mode now.

---

Quote: Frank Cannon wrote in post #4

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #2

---

I disagree. This (whatever you wish to call it) is deliberate, too.

It's exactly what you'd expect to get if you had the inhabitants of the Harvard faculty lounge running the country.

---

Every step of the way on this, you can see the Regime stunned and off kilter because of circumstances they thought they had in their control. Christ, now they have Putin mocking them in their house organ (New York Times). That probably have them in melt down mode now.

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #6

---

I hear what you're saying, but don't lose sight of the fact that the PRIME DIRECTIVE (Star Trek lingo) of the Regime was to "fundamentally transform" America. We (i.e. the non brain dead) knew what he meant by that phrase. To "fundamentally transform" it into some socialist, western European-style utopia. To the great un-washed, however, the term was sufficiently vague to mean whatever they wanted it to mean.

To most Zero voters, it simply meant he was "different" from the eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Booooooooooosh.

So yes, he threw out the "red line" comment. But it worked - it helped him get re-elected.

And getting the regime re-elected was absolutely job one.

---