quote:

bowing out of the UN? the 'liberal' institution America created?

Well, why not? Seriously, what has the UN done in that last decade?

quote:

hah! you honestly think you went to Vietnam, Korea and central America because america cared about them?

You don't live in the United States right now, but, in regard to Iraq, the supporters of the war truly care about Iraq and believe that the US is spreading democracy there...they think that we are helping and doing the right thing. Our government may think otherwise, of course.

quote:

quote:
be seen as a failed empire


kinda like england?

hah, a good comeback, Britain knew when the world had had enough of empire, and withdrew accordingly, i am very happy where my nation is today, mostly.

quote:

I should hope so everyone tends to care more about there own nation than others and caring about other nations has only gotten the US in to more wars. (Vietnam, Korea and The Bannana Wars just to name a few)

hah! you honestly think you went to Vietnam, Korea and central America because america cared about them? are you a complete fool? if you do your being chewed up and spat out by the rolling propoganda machine that is the US government, at least some of the ultra nationalistic americans on this forum know that their nation does what it does and for whatever reasons, if you honestly believe that god help you.

I said beyond the brits they are just about the only europeans I like.

As to the UN it doesn't do anything except cost america lives and money let someone else play world police force because we shouldn't have to.

quote:

be seen as a failed empire

kinda like england?

quote:

blatent nationalistic

I should hope so everyone tends to care more about there own nation than others and caring about other nations has only gotten the US in to more wars. (Vietnam, Korea and The Bannana Wars just to name a few)

quote:

I think beyond the brits we should say fuck you to europe in general they hate us and we dislike them in return if france and germany want to go at it again as I said before let'em it's not our issue if the frogs and krauts want to rehash world wars 1 and 2

your displaying the blatent nationalistic and racist comments which was the cause of the great wars. Your ideas are ridiculous, bowing out of the UN? the 'liberal' institution America created? isolationism? do you know nothing about the world and its politics?

I agree with you though id like to see America withdraw, be seen as a failed empire and turn in on itself and slowly rot away in obscurity just as isolated empires do. Good Luck to you.


by the way your comment about the brits, we don't like you either.

I think beyond the brits we should say fuck you to europe in general they hate us and we dislike them in return if france and germany want to go at it again as I said before let'em it's not our issue if the frogs and krauts want to rehash world wars 1 and 2

Maybe if we got rid of the UN and let the EU come up with something similar. Heck, most wars of the past century or two were in Europe or the Near East. They could put it in Switzerland so nobody can say there's a bias.

I agree with clpo though I think that we should bow out of the UN completely all it's done is gotten Americans killed while doing absolutley nothing

I don't think anyone here is advocating a complete isolationist stance. Every country needs to participate in foreign trade. Without trade, any country would simply fall apart. It's not possible for a single country to manufacture everything it could ever need.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is with being a superpower. In the time that the United States has been a major world power (post-WW2), we have been called upon to defend anyone and everyone. Like it or not, the mantle of the world's protector has been thrown onto the US; this is, of course, a direct result of being the most powerful and influential nation in the world. Not everyone likes it, however. I don't. No single nation should have to take care of the other 191, or protect the weak from the agressive and opressive. That's the job of the world as a whole, not the United States, with a bit of help from Britain, France, and possibly Israel.

The very reason I advocate a more isolationist foreign policy for the United States is how we've become so enmeshed in the affairs of other nations. If the United States had a foreign policy like the one it had prior to the First World War, we would not be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Heck, we wouldn't even be in Saudi Arabia, or Germany, or Bosnia and Herzegovina. There are times when action is needed, such as in World War II. German agression against Britain directly affected the United States. The US and Britain were allies than, and still are. Thus, I find nothing wrong with honoring such alliances. But the US has no need to engage in action outside of alliances. If the world really wanted Saddam out of power, the UN should have acted. The United States had no business invading Iraq. Yes, thousands of people were being killed by Saddam. But it wasn't our business. Saddam had every right to run his country how he wished; the US had no right to remove him from power. The UN is the body that deals with human rights violations, not the US.

An isolationist policy would return the US to focusing more on American citizens. Have you seen the stats for Americans living beneath the poverty line? It's pathetic. Yet nothing is being done to alleviate the problem. Too much money is being poured into foreign wars and conflicts. The Iraq war alone has cost over $278 billion. That money could have been used to send 13 million students to college for four years. It could have also provided two and a half million houses. Or insured 167 million children for one year. The United States needs to get out of the affairs of all but our closest allies, and draw back a little even there. Bush and Cheney have already criticized Putin for how he runs Russia. How long will it be before they turn on the pseudo-socialism of Britain?

Isolationism does not mean no trade. Well, it can, but the isolationism I advocate doesn't. Trade is the lifeblood of the world. But the United States does not need to provide for the world any longer. The world needs to learn to take care of itself. It's called the United Nations for a reason. If it had been meant to be what it is now, they would have named it the United States, A Few Allies, and a Communist.

Is it just me, or isn't America a huge consumer? From an Economics view, it would be unwise to persue an isolationist policy because America requires a huge amount of trade, which are aided by diplomatic agreenments that would not be renewed under the isolationist policy.

Also, if you persue this path, then your days as a major superpower are numbered. Already, concern about India and China are stirring the newspapers, and your topspot is more precarious than you might imagine.

It is also too late to employ an isolationist policy. You are involved in too many countries and too many generations of people in countrys like Afganistan and Iraq detest you for destroying thier infastructure.

So all in all, I don't think its a good idea.

exactly as I said below just flip the bird to the rest of the world and deal with our own issues

quote:

isolationism actually is a good idea. but u must remember, our foreign policy includes spreading democracy for all countries...

Umm. Well, if we adopted an isolationist foreign policy, then we'd obviously get rid of our current foreign policy.

isolationism actually is a good idea. but u must remember, our foreign policy includes spreading democracy for all countries...

Revive as this topic has come up recently

well we can be the Alaskan Oil fields have as much or more than Saudia Arabia it's just a matter of getting to it

We rely on Asian suppliers for a lot more than cheap goods these days, which complicates the situation a bit. American corporations have been outsourcing not just the manufacturing jobs, but also secretarial work and a good deal of computer work. I have read of instances of Indian workers managing tax paperwork for americans, as the companies back in the USA find it cheaper to outsource the job than do it here. Kind of scary really. (You can read more about this in The World is Flat, written by Thomas L. Friedman. I just finished this book, and it was a bit of an eye opener for me.)
Not only that, but we rely on the more traditional asian suppliers (goods, not services) to such a degree that I strongly suspect a lot of our corporations would not survive if they lost those sources. If, for example, Dell, went down, that would also put a lot of Americans out of work, which is not exactly a good thing for us either. Thus, it is in the interest of our government to make certain that such supplies continue to be availible to these corporations, even if that means throwing some diplomatic weight around now and then and negotiating with other governments for trade agreements and whatnot(*note* I am not entirely clear on the mechanics of international trade, but I do know that governmental agreements are involved in it). And of course it helps that most large corporations have well funded lobbyists in Washington looking out for them...
Just a personal view here, but I think that a good deal of the problems that we have with other nations stem from our energy policy. America as we know it would not last very long were we to lose our sources of petroleum, so we HAVE to stay involved in middle east and african affairs, simply to make sure that things remain stable enough for oil exports to continue. Perhaps If we were a bit more energy independent, some of our international problems would dissapear, or at least be greatly reduced in size. Actually, I think we would just about have to be energy independent for any sort of isolationist policy to be effective.

That's why I said we need to stop giving the asians American Jobs they can make cheap shower slippers for the germans

There is no way in hell America can do that. You need to buy all your crap from Asia.

np amp... if you like anything on the list tell me and I can check my backfiles at school to get you some other stuff. I can't claim much for knowing this stuff tho... I just spend way to much time debating or doing debate research. lol

cool thanks TS I'll check these guys out

HAve you ever read any of these authors amp? I do some stuff about IR for debate and so I have done lots of reading. I don't really enjoy the topic as much as some people but these are some of the best known authors for debate on the subject. I would guess that if you like this... you'd like these authors

Niall Ferguson Professor of History @ NYU and Senior Fellow @ the Hoover Institute

Joeseph Nye (extensively writes about hegemony and different types of power)

Richard N Haass (he writes about the idea of the US as the "lone cowboy")


idk, your post just made me want to jump in to my backfiles and it made me think about these guys. You might like it... so check them out if you want.

I've heard very good arguments both ways for isolationism so it's hard for me to come up with a clear decision either way...