Isolationism

[Denise]

Why is it always considered a bad thing? What would be wrong with the US bringing all of our troops home and not getting involved in other countries conflicts? I am not giving an opinion, just thought it would be a good discussion.

 

[Scorpy]

Why is it always considered a bad thing? What would be wrong with the US bringing all of our troops home and not getting involved in other countries conflicts? I am not giving an opinion, just thought it would be a good discussion.

It is inevitable that a super-power, like the U.S., will try to protect its political/material interests abroad - if only because it can, whether it's right or wrong.

 

[Denise]

Well, I for one, would like us to pull our troops out of other regions of the world and defend ourselves only.

 

[corplinx]

I actually agree. I would much rather see an international "free corps" volunteer army with no home country (so as not to have to bow to political concerns) that goes to places and fights the wars that the west is too apathetic to fight. Its perfectly obvious that an army controlled by politicians will never free the opressed of the world.

 

[patnray]

The US can not exist in isolation. We are part of the world. We depend on other countries for raw materials, goods, and for markets for our products and services. Other countries depend on us: Israel probably could not survive without our support.

We are both in and of the world. We would suffer if we tried to deny that....

 

[Advocate]

I actually agree. I would much rather see an international "free corps" volunteer army with no home country (so as not to have to bow to political concerns) that goes to places and fights the wars that the west is too apathetic to fight. Its perfectly obvious that an army controlled by politicians will never free the opressed of the world.

How is an army without a country supposed to support itself except by plunder? This does not sound like something we would want to have around. And somebody has to control the army, otherwise how is it anything but a dictatorship looking for land?

 

[Denise]

The US can not exist in isolation. We are part of the world. We depend on other countries for raw materials, goods, and for markets for our products and services. Other countries depend on us: Israel probably could not survive without our support.

We are both in and of the world. We would suffer if we tried to deny that....

What do we need from other countries that we don't have ourselves?

 

[Rockon]

What do we need from other countries that we don't have ourselves?

Cheap labor, for one thing.

Historically, I think the isolationist movement was predicated on the notion that we didn't want to get involved in "other people's wars." That is to say, the isolationists were sick and tired of the constant battles being fought on the European continent. It wasn't until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor that isolationism really fell out of favor.

Lately, of course, politicians will dredge it up when it suits their needs. Conservatives blasted Clinton and the UN for getting involved in Kosovo and Somalia...remember all the controversy about the U.S. being "...the world's policeman?" OTOH liberal politicians were happy to attack Ronald Reagan and Bush senior for the same reasons.

I think most people will agree that the world economy and global terrorism has ended isolationism until further notice.

Tim

 

[ssibal]

The U.S. is damned if we do, damned if we don't.

 

[fishbob]

What do we need from other countries that we don't have ourselves?

A large percentage of our shoes, fuel, clothes, hardware, electronics, auto parts, and food. I think that we have tried to be isolationist in the past. It didn't stop any wars, we were just more surprised when we got involved.

 

[Scorpy]

Cheap labor, for one thing.

Historically, I think the isolationist movement was predicated on the notion that we didn't want to get involved in "other people's wars." That is to say, the isolationists were sick and tired of the constant battles being fought on the European continent. It wasn't until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor that isolationism really fell out of favor.

Lately, of course, politicians will dredge it up when it suits their needs. Conservatives blasted Clinton and the UN for getting involved in Kosovo and Somalia...remember all the controversy about the U.S. being "...the world's policeman?" OTOH liberal politicians were happy to attack Ronald Reagan and Bush senior for the same reasons.

I think most people will agree that the world economy and global terrorism has ended isolationism until further notice.

Tim

I would agree that the US's interventionist foreign policies are, in part, fueling global terrorism.

 

[Rockon]

I would agree that the US's interventionist foreign policies are, in part, fueling global terrorism.

Well, in the sense that global terrorism can find any excuse it wants to justify itself. In other words, it doesn't matter what the United States (or any other major power for that matter) does there is always going to be an extremist group somewhere that is going to use our behavior as an excuse to blow things up.

Or are you suggesting that if the United States were to rethink it's interventionist policies, however you define them, that there would be less global terrorism?

Tim

 

[Scorpy]

Well, in the sense that global terrorism can find any excuse it wants to justify itself. In other words, it doesn't matter what the United States (or any other major power for that matter) does there is always going to be an extremist group somewhere that is going to use our behavior as an excuse to blow things up.

Or are you suggesting that if the United States were to rethink it's interventionist policies, however you define them, that there would be less global terrorism?

Tim

I think that terrorists use the disaffection that the US's foreign policies generate to gain support just as the Nazis used the punitive Treaty of Versailles to gain support. Changing our policies may not get rid of terrorists, but I think it may take some of the wind out of their sails.

 

[Rockon]

I think that terrorists use the disaffection that the US's foreign policies generate to gain support just as the Nazis used the punitive Treaty of Versailles to gain support. Changing our policies may not get rid of terrorists, but I think it may take some of the wind out of their sails.

Ok. What policies?

Tim

 

[NullPointerException]

Sticking up for Israel.

Isolationism is crappy. As for the freecorps army, it is impossible unless it is funded through the U.N. but not part of the U.N. Also, it would have to be made of people trained since Childhood otherwise they would have allegiances to their own countries. Finally, a free-corps would be a danger if it ever got big enough and be forced to disband, which it wouldn't. The result would be a war.

 

[Saturn]

I have to admit that I've been leaning towards "isolationism" on a governmental level. However, I think that term is a bit of a misnomer, as it's commonly used in reference to military force or government imposed sanctions. I'm all in favor of international trade, cultural exchanges, and the like. And non-governmental organizations that promote human rights, like Amnesty International, are also very good. But in most circumstances, I think threats or use of military force against other countries, particularly to change those countries' purely internal affairs, do more harm than good.

 

[Scorpy]

Ok. What policies?

Tim

The policy of insinuating itself into the conflicts and disputes of other countries by supporting one side over the other with aid and/or military support. The policy of attacking other countries even when those countries never attacked the US. The policy of supporting unpopular leaders (i.e. the Shah of Iran) simply because they're friendly to US interests.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, I for one, would like us to pull our troops out of other regions of the world and defend ourselves only.

I thiink there is a false dichotomy being presented here. Either the US dominates the world, or it withdraws from it completely. The US is part of an international community either way. It just has to act as a responsible citizen.

 

[patnray]

What do we need from other countries that we don't have ourselves?

A partial list of raw materials the US imports:

oil
aluminum ore
timber products
coffee
fruits and vegetables (especially in the winter)
textiles

Then there is labor. For example, most chip making companies manufacture the chips in the US (where the major cost is the macinery and engineering labor) but ship the wafers to Singapore to be cut up and packaged into carriers (where the major cost is relatively unskilled labor).

We are deeply enmeshed in the world economy. We have significant investments in other countries. We are dependant, in some ways, on other countries. When those investments and dependancies are threatend, we have to protect our interests...

 

[Saturn]

We are deeply enmeshed in the world economy. We have significant investments in other countries. We are dependant, in some ways, on other countries. When those investments and dependancies are threatend, we have to protect our interests...

I don't even remotely believe that international trade depends upon backing by military force. Sure, certain segments of our economy are dependent upon other countries. But guess what? They're dependent upon us, too. And since our economy is much bigger and more diversified than theirs, they'll feel it a whole lot worse if they try to withdraw from the U.S. market.