NationStates Jolt Archive

Frankly, it's pissing me off. Everytime someone like me advocates the complete withdrawal from all entangling alliances, pursuing a non-aligned, mind-our-business foreign policy, and returning all our troops from abroad, more often than not, we get labeled "isolationist." Nothing could be further from the truth. Likewise, the America First Committee of the 1930s was not 'isolationist.' They wanted to keep America out of a war that, at that point, was none of our business. They did not advocate cutting off diplomatic relations or trade relations with the rest of the world, as an 'isolationist' would. So I'm wondering: why the hell can't people tell the difference between an isolationist and a non-interventionist? :mad:

too long words

Because the line is extremely thin, and one has a tendency to change into the other if you're not looking.

Because the line is extremely thin, and one has a tendency to change into the other if you're not looking.

The line isn't that thin. Non-interventionists have no problem with diplomatic relations and trade. It's just that we don't want to be Globocop.

I guess because isolationism sounds like "isolation" - the true philosophy of non-interventionism.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I guess because isolationism sounds like "isolation" - the true philosophy of non-interventionism.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Bullshit. Non-interventionists don't want to isolate the country. They just don't want us to police the world or entangle ourselves in things that are of no concern to us. Whereas, an isolationist wants to completely cut off the country from the rest of the world.

Because both terms have more than three sylables :D

Frankly, it's pissing me off. Everytime someone like me advocates the complete withdrawal from all entangling alliances, pursuing a non-aligned, mind-our-business foreign policy, and returning all our troops from abroad, more often than not, we get labeled "isolationist." Nothing could be further from the truth. Likewise, the America First Committee of the 1930s was not 'isolationist.' They wanted to keep America out of a war that, at that point, was none of our business. They did not advocate cutting off diplomatic relations or trade relations with the rest of the world, as an 'isolationist' would. So I'm wondering: why the hell can't people tell the difference between an isolationist and a non-interventionist? :mad:
"mind-our-business foreign policy" is by definition isolationist. Think about what that means - we only deal with our own country, not with anything else - isolating ourselves from the world. Rephrasing that as only dealing with the US' vital interest becomes an interventionist foreign poicy.

The America First committe wanted the US not to intervene in foreign conflicts, and just not deal with foreign countries. That's isolationist.

"mind-our-business foreign policy" is by definition isolationist. Think about what that means - we only deal with our own country, not with anything else - isolating ourselves from the world. Rephrasing that as only dealing with the US' vital interest becomes an interventionist foreign poicy.

The America First committe wanted the US not to intervene in foreign conflicts, and just not deal with foreign countries. That's isolationist.

No, that is NOT isolationist. Isolationists want to break off ALL relations (diplomatic, trade, etc.) with the rest of the world. Non-interventionists do not. Non-interventionists welcome diplomatic and trade relations.

It is because the original "isolationaist" view is modern "non-interventionist" view. People are generally too caught up to recognize suttle differences, and are too busy reading the first sentence of a stance, to actually tackle arguments for that stance.

I myself am a non-interventionist... And do not think the US Military should be fucking "Global-Cop".... This does not mean I want to break off all relations, just that the rest of the world should be left to sort out its problems, and we handle our own; untill such time as someone elses problem becomes our own....

There is nothing wrong with traditional-isolationism (non-interventionism)... It's a perfectly reasonable and logical view (held by many early liberals and conservatives, as well as libertarians)...

No, that is NOT isolationist. Isolationists want to break off ALL relations (diplomatic, trade, etc.) with the rest of the world. Non-interventionists do not. Non-interventionists welcome diplomatic and trade relations.
In the context of American history, you're wrong. American Isolationism has been defined as being against entangling alliances, but not against all trade. George Washington, big advocate of trade, also the first American isolationist.

Some ev:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_isolationism

Best quote: "President Thomas Jefferson affirmed the ardent isolationism of the young country in his inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

Additionally, being isolationist or "non-interventionist" in modern times is a big mistake. I'll elaborate if you're willing to accept a pseudop-threadjacking.

The line isn't that thin. Non-interventionists have no problem with diplomatic relations and trade. It's just that we don't want to be Globocop.
Globocop, lol.
Yeah, after careful consideration I've realized that I'm non-interventionist rather than isolationist. Now I just gotta learn to stop using 'isolationist' to ID my foregin policy as

:confused: What does that mean anyway?

Because non-interventionism is part of the larger whole that is isolationsim. And you all know how we posters like to go to extremes. (say, for example, that you are for gay-marriage and the the next thing you know, you are a commie).

So when you advocate non-interventionism, we all jump the gun and look at the larger picture that is isolationism.

Much like any american who advocate socialism is branded a communist.

i guess id like to know why it bugs you so much. they are close enough to the same thing for ME.

:confused: What does that mean anyway?
Interventionism a government policy of intervening in the world beyond its borders, to secure its national interests.

Frankly, it's pissing me off. Everytime someone like me advocates the complete withdrawal from all entangling alliances, pursuing a non-aligned, mind-our-business foreign policy, and returning all our troops from abroad, more often than not, we get labeled "isolationist." Nothing could be further from the truth. Likewise, the America First Committee of the 1930s was not 'isolationist.' They wanted to keep America out of a war that, at that point, was none of our business. They did not advocate cutting off diplomatic relations or trade relations with the rest of the world, as an 'isolationist' would. So I'm wondering: why the hell can't people tell the difference between an isolationist and a non-interventionist? :mad:

Well, the real truth is, people are damned idiots that is why. There is no thin line.

There is isolationalism, and then there is one country knowing how to mind its own damned business. Globalism and interventionalism is bad for Americans.

Frankly, it's pissing me off. Everytime someone like me advocates the complete withdrawal from all entangling alliances, pursuing a non-aligned, mind-our-business foreign policy, and returning all our troops from abroad, more often than not, we get labeled "isolationist." Nothing could be further from the truth. Likewise, the America First Committee of the 1930s was not 'isolationist.' They wanted to keep America out of a war that, at that point, was none of our business. They did not advocate cutting off diplomatic relations or trade relations with the rest of the world, as an 'isolationist' would. So I'm wondering: why the hell can't people tell the difference between an isolationist and a non-interventionist? :mad:

. . .Because I have never met nor heard of a person that fits your definition of isolationist, and because a lot of people have been described as "isolationists" who do indeed fit your definition of "non-interventionists", Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and George Washington included. Since "isolationist" in your description is an empty set, or put more simply is a concept that applies to no one, and "non-interventionist" seems to be synonymous with how most people with any knowledge of history have learned to use the term "isolationist", then we tend to see you as making a distinction without a difference, and simply trying to avoid a negative association.

I am avoiding a threadjacking here by going into a detailed analysis, but isolationism or non-interventionism no longer work in the modern era where trade, commerce, and industry are all heavily interconnected. The Treaty of Westphalia system is dead and gone, replaced with a global market that requires someone to protect and manage the system.