Isolationism

[The Plant]

Originally posted by Galvatron91
Honestly, what do you guys think? Would the world be better off with the US back in isolationism?

My opinion is that America would be better off back in isolationism. My country has to stop being the Policeman of the world. It irritates people, including myself, it gets us deeper in debt, and we really have no right to get involved at all IMO.

[Strafe]

Heck no to complete isolationism. The United States and other first world nations have the potential to accomplish incredible amounts of good. It would be an atrocity to simply step back from the world and give up. To use an analogy, Roosevelt could have simply said screw this ****, let Europe fight out WW2. Point is, it's a darn good thing we eventually got involved. Now that's not to say we should put our hands in every proverbial cookie jar, nor should we let people like "President" Bush determine a large portion of foreign policy. It's that kind of excess that gets us into trouble. But if we actually worked to build consensus, probably through the UN, we could make things work better without having to retreat from world affairs completely.

[Denyer]

Welcome back, Nate!

[Savannahtron]

I think fallen Imperialism is the reason for the US's isolation. We were sick of the monarchy and what it stood for, and with the Manifest Destiny, the continent *well not including Mexico and Canada* was to be ours.

Our forefathers wanted to set up a Utopia and thought Isolation would keep us from the "world's troubles". We also still had just won the war of 1812 about 20 to 30 years earlier when this isolation process really came into effect.

Think about this. Vietnam was about the same time period (about 30 years or so ago) , and it is still fresh in the population's mind for those who were adults then. Do you think that our foreign policy is Not mandated in some fashion because of the Vietnam Conflict? Sure it is. This whole Iraq thing is very similar.

How long will that war last? How many men and women will die? How much money will be lost? Will the end result be worth the war?

These are the questions our US leaders are asking. General consensus around the world is that they won't support another ground war in Iraq, but I am sure Brittain and the others will buckle under pressure from the US. They have too much to lose if they don't.

Now do I agree with a war in Iraq. Well, I think a view of isolation would be wrong in this case. Other countries want to isolate themselves from this modern day Hitler, and turn the other way. Well it did not work the last time, and our leaders recognize this threat and are not about to let it happen. It is only a matter of time before Iraq has nuclear capabilities, and then what?

Sodom *y* Insane will blow everyone up. Nuclear winter. blah blah blah.

So isolation is wrong, and that is why our Leaders abandonned it with WW2. We realized that we could no longer ignore our people's people of the world.

See what some people don't realize is we are the world's nation. People from everywhere migrate to the US and they bring their culture here with them. Yes they become the US, but they never relinquish their heritage. That is what makes the USA the greatest country in the world.

[Strafe]

Originally posted by Savannahtron
That is what makes the USA the greatest country in the world.

It begins...

Define greatest country.

Is it by GNP?

If that's the case then we do, but at what cost? How many third world countries suffer for our bottom line? (Read: Nike/Sweatshops etc)

Is it by military strength?

My tank is bigger than yours! Great, that'll solve things...Contrary to popular belief bombing things into oblivion doesn't always solve the underlying dilemmas...

Is it by population?

In that case India and China have us beat.

Is it by cultural diversity?

While I would say that is a strength, look how much evil has been done in the US because of that diversity. Our greatest strength may be a glaring weakness as well. But that doesn't make us the greatest country in the world...

Land Size/area/territory?

Please refer to the definitions of Colonialism/Imperialism/Utter failure for the answer....

What then defines a greatest country?

Nothing, there is no greatest country. Most people are quite content to just try and live another day without worrying about such nonsense.

[nmathew]

The Libertarians have been pleading for isolationism for some time. I think it would cause a lot of problems. Maybe Compy and I are living in different worlds.

http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/deploy/in ... ntro.shtml



I don't know where the idea that we're a side line force that rarely acts unless our interests are at stake.

Bosnia, Samolia, Korea (still there I believe) come to mind.


If we pulled out, it would rock the stability of volitile parts of the world, because we threaten a lot of people with a big stick. I think we would loose a lot of our allies in Nato if we did, and ultimately that would hurt us.

greatest nation in the world? maybe. economy, military might, and the vanity to use it. Yeap, that's us/me.
________
Health store

[The uiltmate prime fan]

{please note, im EXTREMELY PISSED OFF right now, so if i make someone mad, sorry.}

you want to know what i think about isolationism?. i think its the excuse of cowards. there is no way, in a WORLD WAR that we have the right to sit back and say, "not our problem." does anyone really think the nazis would have just let us be?. the japanese maybe, but the nazis?. after hitler would be down picking apart the soviets, we would be next. screw isolationism, if i had an army as powerful as the wehrmacht sitting across the channel, i would do whatever i could to pick up a weapon and say" comeon Motherfreaker, lets dance". and as for now adays.... who cares. we shouldent do things so the rest of the world can appreciate us, nor should we get so pissy whenever critism is heard. all that matters is, any cheap thug we see ariseing in the world, we slap 'em down. no matter the cost, no matter how reluctent we are. because that thug could easily become the next hitler. and, as for getting pissed off over pearl harbor...... it is one thing to attack a legitmate millitary target, with your emblem held high and a formal declaration of war on the desk of the secretary of state, its quite anouther to use CIVILLAN aircraft, to attack CIVILLAN targets, without a formal declaration of war, without atleast the the guts to stand up and say "yeah, we kicked your ass, what are you going to do about it." please dont hit down below again, because as impartial as im trieing to be, i refuse to allow that to be used against me.

[Skycat]

Originally posted by Savannahtron
See what some people don't realize is we are the world's nation. People from everywhere migrate to the US and they bring their culture here with them. Yes they become the US, but they never relinquish their heritage. That is what makes the USA the greatest country in the world.

Ahem. You could say exactly the same thing about Australia. We're just as culturally diverse as America, and I believe we're probably even more so. I also believe we're more tolerant of other peoples' cultures and religions in our everyday lives. I could be wrong, since I've never really lived in America; that's just what I think. So technically, Australia could also be called the "world's nation" if one is basing it on multiculturalism. Which means one can't really proclaim America as the "greatest country in the world," not based on that, anyway.

As for isolationism, well... I don't pay much attention to politics, especially international politics 'cos it tends to tick me off, so any opinions I have on America's situation probably wouldn't be very well informed.

I do believe, however, that Australia's got a pretty good balance there when it comes to interacting with the rest of the world. We lend help when it's needed, but we don't go sticking our noses into each and every little political debate going on everywhere else. It probably helps that we don't have much of a military force compared to the other major countries, heh. But the military force we do have, I've heard tell that some of it is considered the best in the world.

Nobody wants to mess with the Aussies, believe me. *grins*

[Pun-3X]

I'll have a quick say:

My thing is that we have so many good relations with the world, ties with so many countries, friendships with so many nations. So let's give that up because when we DO make the wrong foreign decisions people get mad at us?

tone that down to individual levels. You have lots of friends, but it requires leaving the house to see them (or them coming to yours) Because you end up making some bad relationships, or even making enemies, or doing things with some friends others might not approve of, you come to the conclusion that you shouldn't have ANY friends at all?

I'm sorry, but that IS a wussy conclusion. I can understand the frustration of going "Hell with it, we keep screwing up, we can't make everyone (note, I did not say "anyone" and for a reason) happy, SCREW IT, I'm going home and never coming out!" Silly, really.

Though I understand the conclusion. America DOES stick its nose in just about everything. Now, many of these cases we're invited in on one term or another. Not every time, mind you, and I won't argue if it's a majority or not. But it does bring up the counterpoint. If we become extreme isolationists, the world will begin to beg for the states to come back. This isn't egotism, this will happen. PLENTY of places will be in the mode of "Good, and stay over there and don't come out again!" But oh so many will be wondering where we went.

In which case, the world can never be happy. We're gone, we're asked for. We're there, and it's "What?! YOU again?!"

That's not Entirely America's fault. In some ways, sure--because nations are so used to us BEING there, then suddenly we aren't. But that's just it. We can't just cut it all away. America IS a big influence in the world. Not the only influence, but we have our hand in things. Now that we do, we don't just pull back and quit because no one is ever happy. Which, really, says it all. We will never make everyone truly happy. And you will ALWAYS hear the nay-sayers louder than the content.

Because the content are just that, and have nothing to belly-ache over.

(Heh, "quick say," yeah... )

[Savannahtron]

Originally posted by Skycat


Ahem. You could say exactly the same thing about Australia. We're just as culturally diverse as America, and I believe we're probably even more so. I also believe we're more tolerant of other peoples' cultures and religions in our everyday lives. I could be wrong, since I've never really lived in America; that's just what I think. So technically, Australia could also be called the "world's nation" if one is basing it on multiculturalism. Which means one can't really proclaim America as the "greatest country in the world," not based on that, anyway.

Actually, I think Australia and the US have a lot in common. One was populated by religiously persecuted, and the other by a penal colony. A lot of non-US people don't realize this, but our state of Georgia was also a penal colony for Brittains prisoners.

Now isn't it funny, the Brits expelled their worst, and several hundred years later, these 2 nations are their biggest allies.

And for Strafe's comments, I explained why I thought the US was the best country in the paragraph preceding that line.

[Strafe]

Originally posted by Savannahtron

And for Strafe's comments, I explained why I thought the US was the best country in the paragraph preceding that line.

Yeah, I addressed that when I discussed cultural diversity being an indicator of being the "greatest country in the world".

It's nice to have cultural diversity and it is a strength, but frankly right now it isn't. Look at how much prejudice still exists between the races and ethnicities in America. It may not be as blatant as outright cross burnings in the south anymore, but it still exists and everyone knows it. For instance the 1 in 5 black men have been imprisoned, and 1 in 3 have been convicted of a misdemeanor(sp?) or felony. (Taken from The Economist, August or Sept issue, I forget which.)

Point is if our culture or melting pot ideals are what makes the US the greatest country in the world, then you are sorely mistaken because we still have a ton of problems about it all. Now if it was true that racism, stereotyping and so forth were eliminated, then your argument that our differing cultures makes us the best would have more credibility. But as it stands now, the answer is no.

[Savannahtron]

Originally posted by Strafe


Yeah, I addressed that when I discussed cultural diversity being an indicator of being the "greatest country in the world".

It's nice to have cultural diversity and it is a strength, but frankly right now it isn't. Look at how much prejudice still exists between the races and ethnicities in America. It may not be as blatant as outright cross burnings in the south anymore, but it still exists and everyone knows it. For instance the 1 in 5 black men have been imprisoned, and 1 in 3 have been convicted of a misdemeanor(sp?) or felony. (Taken from The Economist, August or Sept issue, I forget which.)

Point is if our culture or melting pot ideals are what makes the US the greatest country in the world, then you are sorely mistaken because we still have a ton of problems about it all. Now if it was true that racism, stereotyping and so forth were eliminated, then your argument that our differing cultures makes us the best would have more credibility. But as it stands now, the answer is no.

I disagree with you. I think you have a very pessimistic viewpoint about the US, and really, if you consider how tolerant we as a people are, we are the greatest country.

[Strafe]

Originally posted by Savannahtron


I think you have a very pessimistic viewpoint about the US, and really,

George W. Bush is our president. Nuff said.

if you consider how tolerant we as a people are, we are the greatest country.

No doubt great strides have been made, but there are still huge problems that need to be resolved. It's not as great as you want to believe.

[Quick Switch]

America is held to a double standard. It's a cop out, really, by the rest of the world.

As many posters have noted (although Auros' post comes to mind) a "damned if you do, damned if you don't mentality" exists. Europe couldn't hack it in the World Wars. Thanks to America's involvement, Western Civilization was saved. Yea.

After which the collective European response (typified by De Gualle) culminated in:

"Get lost!" to America's attempts with NATO.

Threat of Communism:

"Come back!" (NATO returns, with a vengence. Staffed primarily by American military personnel. But not in France.)

For all its pomp, I believe the European Union, like the United Nations, is a toothless tiger, and should trouble erupt, the United States will be called back into the fray by a panicked Europe. After the present crisis is solved, the European leaders will smugly cry "Begone!" to the uncouth soldiers of the US Army. How trite.

And if anyone is offended by this; well, I'm sorry, but that's my perspective on the issues, and this seems like a cyclic relationship. When Europe needs the US, it clamors; when Europe doesn't need/want the US (after said crisis is handled) it castigates.

And, as Redstreak has noted before, Computron, don't try to pin the blame on the US for the Mideast situation, since British Foreign Minister Balfour created the whole mess in the first place with the Balfour Decleration (and thanks to the British Foreign Office, the modern Arab states of Jordan, Iraq, et. al. were organized into the entities that are present today). Ernest Bevin's whitewashing after Balfour didn't help matters any.

Edit: Since I suppose this post is running hot and heavy, let me say (before I get my head bitten off) that this post is not directed at the British people per se, merely its past leaders.

[Sir Auros]

*applauds*

[Pun-3X]

Well said, Quick Switch.

[Lord Zarak]

Ok, does anybody else see the tie that binds first world countries such as America and Britain to these 'duties' of 'policeman of the world'?


Money, simple as.

Because recently (if we all forget the recession we are in at the mo), and historically, the economies of Britain and America have been extremely strong, and as such, large amounts of capital have been generated which have bankrolled the operations listed by Compy.

Raised by capitalism, the money has been used, and whether intentional or not, directly or indirectly, 'innocent' people have been hurt in the persuit by others of 'guilty' people (inverted commas used to denote POV's of countries).

In return, more people have been hurt.

What it comes down to is this: Money is the root of all evil. Morally, it is the greatest corruptor. It must be eradicated. All forms of money making and controling systems such as Keynesianism and capitalism must not have an arena in which to function.

Ideally, socialism would be the better solution, though anarchy is preferable to the currant situation of powerful world leaders able to pick and choose which country to police, or invade, just becasue it would satisfy thier mind that money is being used to prop up an economy.

[The Green Knight]

Originally posted by Lord Zarak
(inverted commas used to denote POV's of countries).

They're called "apostrophes"

[Lord Zarak]

Whatever, they are there for emphasis, not literary accuracy.