U.S. Isolation: Good or Bad?

[Connosaurus Rex]

49% of Americans (the highest percentage in decades) now believe that the U.S. should "mind its own business."

I think that we should mind our own business in that we should stop F****** around with other countries (Afghanistan I'm looking at you) so that we stop spending money on other countries that don't want it. Also I think Nato should pay us back and/or step the F*** up in their own protection.

 

[Lt. Vinciti]

What? As in separating yourselves from the UN?

I don't want what happened in Fallout to become a reality. It's how it all starts.

But in all seriousness I think you need be restrained a little bit with all those nukes and everything, I may have deviated entirely from what you meant but your post isn't very clear.

Heh.
This.

Then when during our isolation do we annex Canada?

You guy's can't catch one man in a bunch of desert in a country that's smaller than one of your states, I can't bear to think of how you'd do in snow in a country larger than all of your states combined.

BUILD A BIG FOTHERMUCKING SNOWMAN OF COURSE!


I personally think we should isolate....Let the world be destroyed OR if someone comes after we destroy them

 

[Amnestic]

49% of Americans (the highest percentage in decades) now believe that the U.S. should "mind its own business."

I think that we should mind our own business in that we should stop F****** around with other countries (Afghanistan I'm looking at you) so that we stop spending money on other countries that don't want it. Also I think Nato should pay us back and/or step the F*** up in their own protection.

This may come as a surprise to you, but you're part of NATO [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Map_of_NATO_countries.png].

 

[robman1130]

Define "mind its own business". That has a load of connotations and I'm not sure which one I should be debating.

Should they stop trying to "bring democracy to other countries"? Probably. You should probably hurry up and pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan while you're at it.

Should they close off the borders, restrict trade, eliminate all immigration and build a 500ft high wall around their country? Ah, no. Considering how much of the U.S. deficit other countries own, they actually can't isolate themselves. They rely on other countries and other countries rely on them.

Best thing you could do is stop spending 0.7-1.1 trillion dollars a year on defense and military costs. Seriously. That's just farkin' stupid.

takes alota money to be too big to fail

How is the war against a bunch of unorganised, untrained insurgents armed with AK-47s going?

what, news shows dont exist wherever you are? aaaaaaand that was my d*ck move of the day

 

[Amnestic]

Define "mind its own business". That has a load of connotations and I'm not sure which one I should be debating.

Should they stop trying to "bring democracy to other countries"? Probably. You should probably hurry up and pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan while you're at it.

Should they close off the borders, restrict trade, eliminate all immigration and build a 500ft high wall around their country? Ah, no. Considering how much of the U.S. deficit other countries own, they actually can't isolate themselves. They rely on other countries and other countries rely on them.

Best thing you could do is stop spending 0.7-1.1 trillion dollars a year on defense and military costs. Seriously. That's just farkin' stupid.

takes alota money to be too big to fail

How is the war against a bunch of unorganised, untrained insurgents armed with AK-47s going?

what, news shows dont exist wherever you are? aaaaaaand that was my d*ck move of the day

Yes, but the continued fail of the U.S. military isn't exactly high on the priority list when we have kittens being rescued from trees and a traffic jam on the M1 to report about.

That was mine.

 

[Veylon]

For example, do you know WHY US has to defend Japan? Do you? No? Then you're not in any position to comment on that situation. You cannot say 'We must leave all other countries' because in many cases that would be a terrible and horrific idea, especially in countries like Japan who do not have their own military because the terms of surrender to the US has forbidden them from having one, and in return, the US is their military.

Japan may not technically have a military, but they do have a "Self Defense Force" that spends more on military hardware than North Korea, Iran, Libya, Israel, and Pakistan combined. Heck, it's in the ball park of China and Russia. It has hundreds of fighter planes, hundreds of tanks, and dozens of warships. Add in Japan's technological capacity to go nuclear whenever it wants, and you are not looking at a country that needs to be defended.

 

[GrandAm]

Inevitably the USA (I live in the USA and I do love my country) can't. Not because we would want to interfere in other counrties, but because other countries/allies ARE going to ask us to.

I know our recent foreign policy (last decade) is questionable as whether or not we did any good or even had good intent behind it. I do.

If we instantly stopped and pulled everything to our shores and our shores alone, we will be eventually asked by others to help, negotiate, etc. There are many things that happened over the last 100 years that the USA was asked to particpate in by other countries. Not just wars, but also trade and aid. That we are asked to pay the lion share of.

Other nations can't have it both ways. I am not saying we never did wrong or chose to ignore a better option. That has happened. But the others can't sit and condemn us and at the same time demand that interference in the name of help for them in that moment they ask for it.

When the tsunami that hit the southwest pacific rim a few years ago happened, we sent war ships. Was it to conquer, no. Those warships had hospitals, food, water purifiers, doctors, civil engineers to help those countries devestated. Did the countries that continue to criticise the warships in the gulf and what has been our policy there (right or wrong) say good job for helping those in need? Maybe. But all I ever hear in America from foreign nations is we suck (last decade). I haven't heard anything from the countries that just criticise the USA acknowledging we also do good. Not that we haven't earned criticism, but just hold we do nothing wrong or selfish. Even when we did right (that they won't acknowledge), they did nothing or very little.

Of course it is not every nation or even the individual people of that nation that holds us in permanent contempt. But of those that do, you can't have it both ways. Think about it the next time when our help is asked for.

 

[Connosaurus Rex]

49% of Americans (the highest percentage in decades) now believe that the U.S. should "mind its own business."

I think that we should mind our own business in that we should stop F****** around with other countries (Afghanistan I'm looking at you) so that we stop spending money on other countries that don't want it. Also I think Nato should pay us back and/or step the F*** up in their own protection.

This may come as a surprise to you, but you're part of NATO [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Map_of_NATO_countries.png].

Um did you look at that map before you put it up, the USA is on the right under canada just like always. next time look before looking like an idiot

 

[Amnestic]

49% of Americans (the highest percentage in decades) now believe that the U.S. should "mind its own business."

I think that we should mind our own business in that we should stop F****** around with other countries (Afghanistan I'm looking at you) so that we stop spending money on other countries that don't want it. Also I think Nato should pay us back and/or step the F*** up in their own protection.

This may come as a surprise to you, but you're part of NATO [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Map_of_NATO_countries.png].

Um did you look at that map before you put it up, the USA is on the right under canada just like always. next time look before looking like an idiot

...what.

Europe is on the right. North America is on the left.

 

[Connosaurus Rex]

snip

You wanna now how many troops from Europe are in USA
0
How many troops from USA in Europe
a lot (idk the exact)
so my point is(was)that the Europeans should start actually protecting themselves instead of acting like they can't do anything. We shouldn't have to pay for your protection out their in Europe when you don't do anything for US.
Also you said we're not part of NATO which is the North Atlantic[footnote]maybe something else I don't remember[/footnote] treaty organization and which we are apart of.

 

[Amnestic]

snip

You wanna now how many troops from Europe are in USA
0
How many troops from USA in Europe
a lot (idk the exact)
so my point is(was)that the Europeans should start actually protecting themselves instead of acting like they can't do anything. We shouldn't have to pay for your protection out their in Europe when you don't do anything for US.
Also you said we're not part of NATO which is the North Atlanticmaybe something else I don't remembertreaty organization and which we are apart of.

Are you blind? It's even in the quote stack. To unnecessarily quote myself:

This may come as a surprise to you, but you're part of NATO [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Map_of_NATO_countries.png].

Also, don't kid yourself, you're not protecting Europe (Who exactly would you be protecting it from?) The last time Britain was invaded was long before your country was even founded. We're quite capable of taking care of ourselves.

 

[Connosaurus Rex]

snip yet again

<l<l rewind. What are we exactly argueing now. The fact of US troops in Europe protecting EUROPE( not necessarily Britain) or the fact the USA is in NATO

 

[Frankydee]

Well nobody really likes us anyway so.... yea I'm all for it.

fuck everyone else. pull out the UN, withhold critical funding from struggling countries that hate us anyway.

 

[SirDoom]

It's a good thing, to some degree. Of course there would still be trading going on worldwide, but...

I can't see any downside to taking a few steps away from the world stage. We aren't the "world police" and should stop acting like we are. What goes on in other continents is none of our business. Problems there belong to their respective countries until they escalate into a situation where we are forced to take action, at which point I'll agree that we should intervene. That is only if we are attacked or something like that though.

 

[senorcromas]

Well, as fun as it would be to watch the US die a slow and agonizing death, no, we should not just mind our own business. Maybe we could get our fingers out of a couple pies though, because all it serves to do is make us look weird and "invasive" (see what I did there?).

EDIT: well, whaddaya know? I'm James Bond!

 

[Lonan]

As long as they don't retreat from their defense commitments to Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, I don't really care. However, they really should stay in Afghanistan beyond 2011. Frankly, I'm pretty disappointed with the U.S. right now. It's gone and hurt itself somewhere else and now it's using the excuse of a stubbed toe to retreat from Afghanistan with a white flag protruding from it's ass. It's using the excuse of it's own self-damaging mistake to try to protect it's remaining power. This is the real reason Americans don't want to be involved in the world anymore, it's too expensive and self-damaging. It just wants to recuperate and start playing the same old games again.

What reason do you have to be in Afghanistan other than to save face?

I don't know what you mean by "you" or by "saving face" but I'm pretty sure that the U.S. left Afghanistan to anarchy for 15 years and has finally come back. Now, it's going to pull out before the job is done. Will the Afghan forces be ready? Maybe. I DON'T want to see Afghanistan turn into a land of anarchy again. The U.S. put it into that position, (well, just walked away from the people who fought their war) and now is going in because it created a terrorist breeding ground. It should prevent it from becoming a terrorist breeding ground and make it at least as good as it was before the attempted Soviet invasion. You should not abandon you're allies. The U.S. (Obama) is now abandoning Afghanistan by 2011, and I think Obama is willing to let it rot. I think it's a question of how much. With all the sacrifices, his plan is to leave them their to rot, and for it to become a Taliban stronghold again. I know he isn't just going to leave in 2011, but I doubt Afghanistan's long-term security will be secured in 2 years.

So the U.S. is walking away again, "isolation" it's called. And then it brings in the big guns to start bombing things when it's done with that. I guarantee you, once the Republicans come back in, it'll be a bomb ______________istan to hell foreign policy all over again. And then the Democrats will walk away, and _____________istan will rot. And then when _______________istan starts sending people to destroy the U.S. it will automatically become one of the "bad guys" and will have to be utterly annihilated, even if thousands of civilians die as well. It's just so evil that civilians will also have to be sacrificed, it's the only way to protect a MAIR ica from evil. Yes, to some Americans there are indeed a lot of bad guys. Isolation is a temporary measure. It's only until the sheep (the stupid people in the U.S.) forget why they didn't screw with the world, and then it will start all over again. There only has to be one attack, and that's it. Bush years policy will resume, jsut not as much, or not nearly as much as under him. Then again, I may be surprised. But I doubt by very much.

Still, I would say the U.S. should just go for a clean pull-out of Afghanistan, where the people their will not be abandoned. It would make up for the mistakes of the past and be very redeemed in my mind. Leaving? Abandoning it again? Same old cycle, I promise you. If Afghanistan is abandoned again, I don't think I'll ever forgive the country most responsible.

As for saving face, I have no idea what you mean. I never lost face so I have no need to save face. I also am not in Afghanistan, and am not a country. I don't understand.

 

[Lonan]

Inevitably the USA (I live in the USA and I do love my country) can't. Not because we would want to interfere in other counrties, but because other countries/allies ARE going to ask us to.

I know our recent foreign policy (last decade) is questionable as whether or not we did any good or even had good intent behind it. I do.

If we instantly stopped and pulled everything to our shores and our shores alone, we will be eventually asked by others to help, negotiate, etc. There are many things that happened over the last 100 years that the USA was asked to particpate in by other countries. Not just wars, but also trade and aid. That we are asked to pay the lion share of.

Other nations can't have it both ways. I am not saying we never did wrong or chose to ignore a better option. That has happened. But the others can't sit and condemn us and at the same time demand that interference in the name of help for them in that moment they ask for it.

When the tsunami that hit the southwest pacific rim a few years ago happened, we sent war ships. Was it to conquer, no. Those warships had hospitals, food, water purifiers, doctors, civil engineers to help those countries devestated. Did the countries that continue to criticise the warships in the gulf and what has been our policy there (right or wrong) say good job for helping those in need? Maybe. But all I ever hear in America from foreign nations is we suck (last decade). I haven't heard anything from the countries that just criticise the USA acknowledging we also do good. Not that we haven't earned criticism, but just hold we do nothing wrong or selfish. Even when we did right (that they won't acknowledge), they did nothing or very little.

Of course it is not every nation or even the individual people of that nation that holds us in permanent contempt. But of those that do, you can't have it both ways. Think about it the next time when our help is asked for.

This is absolutely true. The U.S. has absolutely helped on the world stage, and I fully acknowledge this. I hope the comments I left didn't leave a different impression. (assuming you read them and were offended, I hope you were not)

 

[GrandAm]

snip

This is absolutely true. The U.S. has absolutely helped on the world stage, and I fully acknowledge this. I hope the comments I left didn't leave a different impression. (assuming you read them and were offended, I hope you were not)

No worries this is a public forum. I know that any comment made abot America or Americans even if interperated by whomever can be held as a negative does not mean any person is attacking me personally. It as I see it is just good discussion. Civilised debate even. I know there are many in this world that appreciate at least some of what America has done on the world stage. I only posted my remarks because I know there are those that absolutely believe America hasn't, including many Americans. So don't worry you and everybody here is cool.

In fact the only persons I would take offense to are those that would explicitly send an insult my way at me directly. Such as "GrandAm you are a Jerk." Even then I might not take offense because 50% of the time I am, with no delusions. Heck I am usually inclinde to agree.

Especially when I target a specific group in what I think is an attempt at humor. Usually that forms in blatent sexism. But it is always a joke. I really think women can drive cars as well as a man...most of the time

 

[crudus]

Funny story: this is what the US used to do. That is why we were neutral in WWI and WWII for the first half at least. For some reason after WWII we were like "ok, since you guys can't get it right we are stepping in", then followed our involvement with the Korean war, Vietnam War, Gulf War and Gulf War 2.0. So yes, I think it would be a good idea.

 

[countrysteaksauce]

Right now what we have liberal internationalism, what we need is selective engagement.