Isilion

…or Hillary or even John McCain, all any of them have to do is ask a couple of questions like this:

[I]t would be a great step forward if we could even debate the foreign policy we have now, a policy that (with a few minor differences) is shared by the establishment of both major parties. One writer correctly labels it “the debate we never have.” Although many American oppose the continued expansion of of Big Government abroad, noninterventionism is never presented to them as an option, The so-called debates between pundits they see on television or read in the newspapers carefully limit the range of debate to points of insignificance. The debate is always framed in terms of which kind of interventionist strategy our government should pursue. The possibility that we should avoid bleeding ourselves dry in endless foreign meddling is not raised. For heaven’s sake, what kind of debate it in which all sides agree that the America needs troops in 130 countries?

That may be the kind of debate the old Pravda once allowed, but where is the robust exchange of ideas we should expect in a free society?*

But they won’t, so they can all kiss my bitter backside.

*Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto, pp. 37-38

Will no one rid us of this pestilence?

With Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea threatened by American hegemonic belligerence, it is not difficult to imagine a scenario that would terminate all pretense of American power: For example, instead of waiting to be attacked, Iran uses its Chinese and Russian anti-ship missiles, against which the US reportedly has poor means of defense, and sinks every ship in the American carrier strike forces that have been foolishly massed in the Persian Gulf, simultaneously taking out the Saudi oil fields and the Green Zone in Baghdad, the headquarters of the US occupation. Shi’ite militias break the US supply lines from Kuwait, and Iranian troops destroy the dispersed US forces in Iraq before they can be concentrated to battle strength.

Simultaneously, North Korea crosses the demilitarized zone and takes South Korea, China seizes Taiwan and dumps a trillion dollars of US Treasury bonds on the market. Russia goes on full nuclear alert and cuts off all natural gas to Europe.

What would the Bush regime do? Wet its pants? Push the button and end the world?

If America really had dangerous enemies, surely the enemies would collude to take advantage of a dramatically over-extended delusional regime that, blinded by its own arrogance and hubris, issues gratuitous threats and lives by Mao’s doctrine that power comes out of the barrel of a gun.

There are other less dramatic scenarios. Why does the US assume that only it can initiate aggression, boycotts, freezes on financial assets of other countries and bans on foreign banks from participation in the international banking system? If the rest of the world were to tire of American aggression or to develop a moral conscience, it would be easy to organize a boycott of America and to ban US banks from participating in the international banking system. Such a boycott would be especially effective at the present time with the balance sheets of US banks impaired by subprime derivatives and the US government dependent on foreign loans in order to finance its day-to-day activities.

Sooner or later it will occur to other countries that putting up with America is a habit that they don’t need to continue.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts244.html

In last Sunday’s New York Times (March 23, 2008), Paul Berman wrote, “Extremist movements have been growing bigger and wilder for more than three decades [now. During] that period, America has tried pretty much everything from a policy point of view. Our presidents have been satanic (Richard Nixon), angelic (Jimmy Carter), a sleepy idiot savant (Ronald Reagan), a cagey realist (George H.W. Bush), wonderfully charming (Bill Clinton), and famously otherwise (George W. Bush). And each president’s Middle Eastern policy has conformed to his character” [emphasis added].

America has tried everything? Is he kidding? When was minding our own business — nonintervention — tried? Clearly, by “everything,” Berman means every style of imperialism. But why should we imagine that any form of imperialism will discredit violent radicals? Such thinking is typical of the U.S.-centric ideas voiced by most pundits and politicians.

More…

This is the explanation I’ve seen yet. Thanks to Walter Block

What, pray tell, is the difference? This is a distinction beyond the ability to comprehend of virtually all non-libertarian journalists, so we do well to carefully spell it out. An isolationist is one who wishes to hide behind his national boundaries, and close out the entire world behind them. North Korea is a reasonable case in point. Wishing that “the rest of the world can go to hell” is indeed a good characterization of this viewpoint. In very sharp contrast, a non-interventionist desires to eschew one and only one means of international interaction: gunboat “diplomacy,” imperialism, forcing our will upon foreign nations at the point of a gun when they pose no threat to us whatsoever. It is entirely compatible with this stance to wish the rest of the world well, and to act so as to attain it. How would a non-interventionist accomplish this task, if he is precluded from utilizing military force? Why through trade, investment, cultural and intellectual exchanges, competing in sports programs with other countries, etc. By serving as a disinterested judge, to resolve foreign disputes, if we are called upon to do so. Congressman Paul is the only true internationalist now running for the Republican nomination for President since he enthusiastically embraces all of these modes of interaction.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block96.html