Isolationism

Galvatron91 · Post by **Galvatron91** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 10:23 pm

For much of the United State's history we held to a policy of Isolationism. We sat on our little Island...we fought our internal wars...the big Teddy came along and started to get us out there with his stupid stick. Prior to World War I we regressed back to the Isolationist policy, only to join World War I, then isolationism. Since World War II we have been out in the front lines of every war, every conflict. And for what? Everyone hates us for it. We goes into places we have no business...we are involved in things we shouldn't be.

Here are my thoughts and I can't wait to hear what you kids have to say. Maybe its time that we return back to Isolationism. Face it...no one wants our intervention. Whatever we do is wrong, correct? Our leaders are inept...(no I'm not being sarcastic, I actually mean this) I firmly believe its time for us to return to our little island and let the world fight it out.

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

Computron · Post by **Computron** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 10:31 pm

I don't think it would make too much of a difference, The USA rarely actually gets involved in any situations it isn't involved in personally. Most of the dirty policing work is generally done by the military forces of Europe (France, Netherlands, SPain, Italy and UK).

--Compy

Galvatron91 · Post by **Galvatron91** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 10:33 pm

you really don't think it would matter eh?

we used to have two towers standing in New York that would beg to differ...we got hit cause of our involvement my friend.

Sir Auros · Post by **Sir Auros** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 10:35 pm

I'd say that we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. If we become an isolationist country again, then the next time something bad happens, other countries will hate us for not helping, and if we continue to "butt in," then other countries will hate us for interfering with their affairs. It's really a no win situation for us, but I'd go with our current policy, because I feel that we often do good in the world, and when we do, that's...good...

Computron · Post by **Computron** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 10:45 pm

Yes, involvement which basically involved you getting involved by siding with sides as oppossed to staying neutral and doing a job

1947-48: U.S. backs Palestine partition plan. Israel established. U.S. declines to press Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to return.

1949: CIA backs military coup deposing elected government of Syria.

1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically‑elected Mossadeq government in Iran (which had nationalized the British oil company) leading to a quarter‑century of repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi.

1956: U.S. cuts off promised funding for Aswan Dam in Egypt after Egypt receives Eastern bloc arms.

early 1960s: U.S. unsuccessfully attempts assassination of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim.

1963: U.S. supports coup by Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) and reportedly gives them names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor.

1967: U.S. blocks any effort in the Security Council to enforce SC Resolution 242, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war.

1970: Civil war between Jordan and PLO. Israel and U.S. discuss intervening on side of Jordan if Syria backs PLO.

1972: U.S. blocks Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat's efforts to reach a peace agreement with Israel.

1973: Airlifted U.S. military aid enables Israel to turn the tide in war with Syria and Egypt.

1973-75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that "covert action should not be confused with missionary work."

1975: U.S. vetoes Security Council resolution condemning Israeli attacks on Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.5

1978-79: Iranians begin demonstrations against the Shah. U.S. tells Shah it supports him "without reservation" and urges him to act forcefully. Until the last minute, U.S. tries to organize military coup to save the Shah, but to no avail.

1979-88: U.S. begins covert aid to Mujahideen in Afghanistan six months before Soviet invasion in Dec. 1979.7 Over the next decade U.S. provides training and more than $3 billion in arms and aid.

1980-8: Iran-Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an overly-aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.

1981, 1986: U.S. holds military maneuvers off the coast of Libya in waters claimed by Libya with the clear purpose of provoking Qaddafi. In 1981, a Libyan plane fires a missile and U.S. shoots down two Libyan planes. In 1986, Libya fires missiles that land far from any target and U.S. attacks Libyan patrol boats, killing 72, and shore installations. When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub, killing three, the U.S. charges that Qaddafi was behind it (possibly true) and conducts major bombing raids in Libya, killing dozens of civilians, including Qaddafi's adopted daughter.

1982: U.S. gives "green light" to Israeli invasion of Lebanon, killing some 17 thousand civilians.10 U.S. chooses not to invoke its laws prohibiting Israeli use of U.S. weapons except in self-defense. U.S. vetoes several Security Council resolutions condemning the invasion.

1983: U.S. troops sent to Lebanon as part of a multinational peacekeeping force; intervene on one side of a civil war, including bombardment by USS New Jersey. Withdraw after suicide bombing of marine barracks.

1984: U.S. backed rebels in Afghanistan fire on civilian airliner.11

1987-92: U.S. arms used by Israel to repress first Palestinian Intifada. U.S. vetoes five Security Council resolution condemning Israeli repression.

1988: U.S. vetoes 3 Security Council resolutions condemning continuing Israeli occupation of and repression in Lebanon.

1998: U.S. destroys factory producing half of Sudan's pharmaceutical supply, claiming retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and that factory was involved in chemical warfare. Evidence for the chemical warfare charge widely disputed.

2000-: Israel uses U.S. arms in attempt to crush Palestinian uprising, killing hundreds of civilians

As we can see Americas peace keeping attempts haven't gone too well as for some reason you can't seem to get the hang of it. These sort of things is why two towers are missing form the New York landscape.

--Compy

The Green Knight · Post by **The Green Knight** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 10:49 pm

I think isolationism would do the US a lot of good. This world's policemen stuff is too dangerous. If we declare a new policy of "Hey... you're on your own!", things like 9/11 wouldn't happen. Granted, there might be those who would be mad when we wouldn't help, but there's ALWAYS someone holding a grudge after we do. And as jaded as they may become, I doubt anybody will attack us for not helping them.

But to become isolated, we have to find a way to cut our dependence on important foreign imports, so as not be drawn into battle over our suppliers...

Hmm... could the answer be... HEMP?! I think so...

Redstreak · Post by **Redstreak** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 10:50 pm

Originally posted by Sir Auros
I'd say that we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. If we become an isolationist country again, then the next time something bad happens, other countries will hate us for not helping, and if we continue to "butt in," then other countries will hate us for interfering with their affairs. It's really a no win situation for us, but I'd go with our current policy, because I feel that we often do good in the world, and when we do, that's...good...

I tend to agree...if we do something we have half the world with us and half against us. There is no pleasing everyone.

And Compy, it looks like your point is that if the US hadn't gotten involved and supported Israel that 9/11 wouldn't have happened...need I remind who made the initiative for an Israeli state? Yep, Britain...

Strange for me to have to point that out in a negative way, being as I'm Jewish...

Sir Auros · Post by **Sir Auros** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 10:50 pm

Originally posted by Computron

As we can see Americas peace keeping attempts haven't gone too well as for some reason you can't seem to get the hang of it. These sort of things is why two towers are missing form the New York landscape.

--Compy

Ok, if you're coming over HERE with that attitude, you're looking for an asskicking dude. I'm just speaking frankly here. All of the Israel/Palestine stuff...we were wrong initially, but we chose Israel and we have to stick with that. And the palestinian refugees are really only living off of the organizations giving them everything they get in their camps, and it's actually BECAUSE of the camps that the palestinians haven't dispersed into other countries.

Galvatron91 · Post by **Galvatron91** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 10:54 pm

I love how you are throwing the term "you" around Comps...like I personally made poor middle eastern policy. We could throw around the poor policy the British had during its Imperialistic days. Three quarters of the wars in Africa are attributed to borders drawn up by colonization with no regard to long standing ethnic boundries. Former colonies are still regarded as thrid world nations by in large. I'm not trying to start a fight here my friend, but face facts, neither one of our nations have a good track record on the international front. We made our mistakes in the Middle East...the British in Africa, the French in Southeast Asia...in the end...no action performed merits destroying two towers filled with people with airplanes...but if this is the world we live in, I think its time the US pulls out and learns to take care of its own internal problems.

Computron · Post by **Computron** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:00 pm

Originally posted by Galvatron91
I love how you are throwing the term "you" around Comps...

Its nothing personal, it's just short = easier to type

Originally posted by Galvatron91
But if this is the world we live in, I think its time the US pulls out and learns to take care of its own internal problems.

I totally agree with what you have said on the points above that quote, as well as that. I personally think that Britain should only police its empire - Our forces are stretched enough as it is to the point we probably couldn't defend the Falklands anymore without USA allowing us to use their military bases.

--Compy

The Green Knight · Post by **The Green Knight** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:01 pm

Originally posted by Galvatron91
We could throw around the poor policy the British had during its Imperialistic days.

Like Eddie Izzard said:

"I claim India for the British Empire!"

Plunk goes the flag.

"You can't claim us, we live here! 500 million of us!"

"Do you have a flag?"

"No..."

"No flag; no country..."

Galvatron91 · Post by **Galvatron91** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:05 pm

Originally posted by Computron
I totally agree with what you have said on the points above that quote, as well as that. I personally think that Britain should only police its empire - Our forces are stretched enough as it is to the point we probably couldn't defend the Falklands anymore without USA allowing us to use their military bases.

--Compy

hey! we should all revert to isolationism!!! its the way of the future!

Post by **Denyer** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:07 pm

Originally posted by Galvatron91
we used to have two towers standing in New York that would beg to differ...we got hit cause of our involvement my friend.

From a symbolic analysis and it therefore being a major nexus of capitalism, I'd venture that the shot would still have been taken. Perhaps smaller targets would have been taken out first, but if you raise something in defiance of gravity, it'll come down eventually one way or another.

We'll either eventually form a global government (involving a significant amount of turmoil and probably actual conflict), or the surviving pockets will wither slowly and seething into themselves. If the genie of instant global communication goes back into the bottle, it takes everything else with it.

Post by **Denyer** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:12 pm

Originally posted by Computron
I totally agree with what you have said on the points above that quote, as well as that. I personally think that Britain should only police its empire - Our forces are stretched enough as it is to the point we probably couldn't defend the Falklands anymore without USA allowing us to use their military bases.

Compy, I dunno whether you've noticed... there isn't a ****ing Empire any more.

Computron · Post by **Computron** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:18 pm

lol, ok the countries who used to be in it - Commonwealth, that was the damm word I was loking for before (I gave up and slipped empire in)

oh and I think I might be able to put my point about americas policing across better. Basically they tend to go in but leave before the job is finished, thus creating hatred for them from a) the people they defeated and b) the people they left to fend for themselves.

Wilson not being heavily involved in the treaty of Verailles is a classic example. The war was won but instead of checking to see a lasting peace was made america just ignored it. They tend to do that in the middle East (i.e arm afghanistan and then leave when it suits them)

--Compy

Post by **Denyer** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:25 pm

Many nations experience (or cause) problems by failing to honour commitments on the basis of their having been confirmed by a previous incumbent.

Unfortunately, my only resolution proposal involves Highlander-style immortals. International law is a completely oxymoronic concept.

The Green Knight · Post by **The Green Knight** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:32 pm

Originally posted by Stuart Denyer
Many nations experience (or cause) problems by failing to honour commitments on the basis of their having been confirmed by a previous incumbent.

Unfortunately, my only resolution proposal involves Highlander-style immortals. International law is a completely oxymoronic concept.

*assumes Kurgan voice

I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY; IT'S BETTER TO BURN OUT THAN TO FADE AWAY!!!!!!

Huh?

Post by **Denyer** » Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:56 pm

Originally posted by Snake
Huh?

It also involves lifetime presidency...

The Green Knight · Post by **The Green Knight** » Sun Aug 25, 2002 12:02 am

Originally posted by Stuart Denyer
It also involves lifetime presidency... ;)

Actually, I was wondering where what I just said had come from... and I assure you, it has nothing to do with my real identity...

But that doesn't cover you if the president is bribed or goes insane, or something...

Shrapnel Clone · Post by **Shrapnel Clone** » Sun Aug 25, 2002 12:22 am

Well, you could do that, but Saddam would launch some painfull stuff in your direction in no time....