George Z. Bush wrote:
"Ken Smith" wrote in message ...
George Z. Bush wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Asmodeus wrote:
Ken Smith wrote in :

The concept of international isolationism in a world where oceans can be crossed
in a matter of hours instead of days, weeks or months is truly mind boggling.

"Isolationism" in the modern sense is the adoption of a laissez-faire
attitude toward how other countries govern their affairs, as opposed to
engineering a seemingly endless procession of coups in virtually every
Third World country on the friggin' globe. If we *can* trust democracy
and self-determination, then let's trust them.

Isolationism, the the 30s and 40s , was a movement designed to keep our nation
out of international agreements. I wasn't aware that its definition had
changed. Surely, a nation committed to isolationism (as I define it) would not
have been involved in engineering coups to achieve regime changes.....they would
have expressed no interest in seeing such changes made.

There is an obvious difference between relative isolationism, which
relies mostly on creating cultural and economic ties to promote one's
legitimate interests, and our unduly meddlesome current policy.

It amounts to little more than sticking one's head in the sand thinking that
one's backside will be protected by an ocean's vastness, and all within the
confines of a global economy. Like I said, mind boggling!!!

One's backside is better-protected by a fair, consistent, and
credible foreign policy, which keeps us from being a global hemorrhoid.
We'd be in a lot better position to broker a settlement between the
Israelis and Palestinians, for instance, if we could be seen as an
honest broker.

That just might be a little hard to do if you express no interest in what's
going on outside of your own back yard. That's my point.

You think in terms of black-and-white, when there are infinite shades
of grey.