I don't think I said anything of the kind, but without a quote from my post, I can't tell. May I presume you are referring to my post #103? If so, I think you should read it again, in the hopes of understanding me better.
So no, I didn't say that nor imply it.
Who’s the one-worlder?
Well, you of course! Isn't that what one would conclude from your comment about a "serious isolationist"?
Besides the fact that you have used a term that doesn't apply in this case, you oviously are getting your "talking points" from the MSM. You know, sir, that people who repeat the nonsense they are fed are sometimes referred to as "stooges", or "useful idiots".
Unless you actually believe we need to be interfering in the internal affairs of other countries without a vital national interest to the United States.
In which case, you are not a "stooge" but a one-worlder.
You said that we have to do the UN’s dirty work, and you said there was no vital national interest.
I’d consider a deliberate attack on US soil killing 3000 of our people to be “of interest.” At least, Pearl Harbor thought so. But, Pearl was an old girl who’s long gone. Her vengeful ways are no longer our ways. So we leave it up to UN....right?
And, since you think the UN should be handling our national security, I’d say that definitely makes you a one-worlder.
It amazes me that some think they can write the crap like you did above, and then go off crying when someone else dishes it back at them.
Your sensitivities are just too delicate to be a freeper.