U.S. Isolation: Good or Bad?

[Heeman89]

Was wondering how long before this topic showed up, the brilliant minds that are the escapist forums never disappoint in bringing up stuff I actually have comments on

I'm 50/50 on this topic, I think isolationism would be good for awhile, maybe 6-12 months just so the world who kinda rags on the US all the time can see how much they really need us, and I think if we go isolationism we go all the way or don't go at all. Withdraw all troops from all countries currently hosting US forces, bring all arms and domestic production back home, withdraw from the UN, and seal our borders. And then when the rest of the world cries to have us back it will be case closed, point proven. Obviously this will never happen because the United States is either too dependent or too lazy to do something like this(this coming from a US citizen) I do believe we like the easy way out of things here (look who we elected president, someone who apologizes all the time) and moving everything back stateside would mean more people would have to go back to work which would fix the unemployment rate back home but I don't think the citizenry would do this, (my opinion some like being unemployed, get money for doing nothing) Also, America is sitting on oil reserves whether it be in Alaska or off the coast of California but its "greener" to get it from the Middle East because they don't have caribou or beautiful beaches over there.

Like it or not, it will never happen but I don't think the world fully appreciates how much the US really does, yes we made some bad calls, Iraq being number one on that list but I seem to remember it was the US coming across the ocean to free western Europe in WW2? Also, the Middle East thrives off our money for oil, and if we weren't there who would they sell their oil too? I guess they could sell it to China but they probably wouldn't get the same revenue they get from the US (might be wrong on those numbers, but I think US is still #1 for importing oil) Yes, are military maybe stuck in Iraq/Afghanistan but what do you think would happen if troops were gone from say the Korean DMZ? You think North Korea wouldn't crush their southern neighbor? My opinion the world itself would be a lot different without the (to quote my British friend) "bloody Yanks" everywhere

 

[VulcanJoo]

the US shutting the fuck up and sitting down isn't the same same as seperation from UN. they mean the US should NOT be all up in the world's face like we're the world police because we are NOT and that's the UN's job. its the same as leaving the world alone for once and dealing with the problems at home, not overseas.[/quote]

The idea of the UN being the world police is fallible to the extreme. I think we've all seen that the Un does a piss poor job at just about everything it touches. Also let's not forget that whole Oil for Food scandal prior to the Iraq war that allowed Saddam to rearm in the first place. America , sad to say, is the best option we have. However a more unilateral approach would be nice.

 

[Chorionicstu]

The United States is just overly aggressive in its foreign policies right now. That will change eventually so it would be stupid to isolate themselves because they would not know what's going on in the world.

 

[chase211]

Well, I guess they shouldn't keep to themselfs but don't think it's them who have to do something all the time, or am I making no sense?

nope

 

[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.

 

[Amnestic]

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?

 

[WrcklessIntent]

And please start making awesome cars again, there is nothing quite as awesome as late 69's/ early 70's muscle cars! *drewl*

Yes i think that we should. Mustang = hotness

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

Well...
1)Let all countries that have a US military base have an individual national vote on whether they want the bases there or not. Yay, we stay, Nay, we leave.
2)Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I know some people may want to stabilize it but it's just not feasible IMO and we need the saved money.
3)Stop the War on Drugs/Terror. Terrorism is a crime, drugs wouldn't be half as harmful if legalized. Decrease foriegn presence, increase domestic security. Maybe we can set harsh punishments (life) for morons who hire illegal labor, and reform immigration laws/border security. Illegal immigration is just used so people can have an exploitable workforce that can be conveniently rid off and unable to unionize.
4)Stay in the UN and do what we can, we'll have a say even if nothing gets done, as usual.
5)Keep trade with other countries but don't go full on globalism/free trade so much that it hurts labor forces significantly. I'm looking at you outsourcing.
6)Keep to our treaties.
7)If two allies get in a fight, use diplomacy or stay out of it. No need for another World War I where alliances cause everything.
8)Give foriegn aid to crisis areas and accept refugees but don't intervene militarily.

Isolationism is bad, so is unilateral interventionism. I for one, would prefer pragmatism and international cooperation.

 

[BringBackBuck]

Democracy is not objectively better than a dictatorship. I wish people would start realising that.

I personally disagree, sure democracy isn't perfect but i think it's the closest to a fair system we have. Off the top of my head i can't think of a dictatorship that i would like to live in, whilst democracys (and also technically republics). The main advantage of the democracy system is that me and you are actually allowed to have these opposing views

The only thing wrong with a dictator ship is the man in charge, if the person in charge wasn't power hungry(and all those things dictators are) then it would work but that won't happen. So democracy is the way to go I guess.

Entirely agree that dictatorship is flawed. Maybe you should check out America's fine history of using the CIA to overthrow democratic governments and replace them with dictators friendly to the USA:

Case in point: CIA put Pinochet into Chile. Also installed dictators in Guatemala, Turkey, Brazil, Argentina, trained the Mujahadeen (sp?) in Afghanistan, backed their old friend Saddam in Iraq, . . .the list goes on.

 

[DracoSuave]

I've noticed that a lot of Americans take 'Mind your own business' to mean 'Completely shut oneself off from foreign affairs, so that we'll be caught with our pants down when the terrorists arrive.'

See, here's the problem.

A -lot- of Americans are used to polarized thinking. You say 'Please, stop invading other countries' and they then look for a extreme opposite view point, like 'But they have terrorists there who are attacking us! So how do we stop ALL terrorists if we leave?'

This pretty much makes discussion of rational moderate -real world- solutions with a lot of Americans an absolute act of futility.

I'd be more comfortable with a Global American Presence and Manifest Destiny and all that jazz if the 'democratic diologue' in America weren't constantly hijacked by extremists.

I'm 50/50 on this topic, I think isolationism would be good for awhile, maybe 6-12 months just so the world who kinda rags on the US all the time can see how much they really need us, and I think if we go isolationism we go all the way or don't go at all. Withdraw all troops from all countries currently hosting US forces, bring all arms and domestic production back home, withdraw from the UN, and seal our borders. And then when the rest of the world cries to have us back it will be case closed, point proven.

See what I mean?

How's this. Moderation (and sanity) says you stop invading foreign powers because 'They tried to kill my daddy'. When the purpose of an invasion is obsfucated from your public, you do not try to shut out discourse within your own people about the reasons for that conflict.

You make the attempt as a people to learn the reasons that you interact with foriegn powers, and the reasons why you have treaties of defense with them.

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.

The inability of your standard American to answer the question 'Why is US doing this?' is astounding. It's your duty as a voting citizen to learn those reasons why, because you have the power to affect policy. Failure to do so means your government has the ability to lie and tread all over you. Isn't that against your own Declaration of Independance, and against the intent of your right to bear arms?

 

[Doug]

According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, covered in a recent article of the Centre Daily Times, 49% of Americans (the highest percentage in decades) now believe that the U.S. should "mind its own business."

Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing? Would the U.S. and the World be better off if we just keep to ourselves for a little while?

Yes, but a similar percent believe the Moon landing never happened, 9/11 was an inside job, and Intelligent design is a valid scientific theory. Basically, people are stupid en masse.

Anywho, mind its own business...hmm... depends on how they indeed to interact with the world in future. If they continue to keep most of the world bent over a table and shaft it up the arse, then yeah, please keep to your own borders. If they plan to actually try and help the world for the benefit of EVERYONE, then please stay!

We do want to help. America is a very idealistic country. However you have to remember at least a 1/4 of our country is retarded,unread, and has the attention span of a vole. So our help is sort of a mixed bag.

True. I mean, America seems to help out alot in Africa, but screws over the middle East and central Asia countries. Unless they are run by friendly mass murdering dictators. To be fair, you're country's foreign policy seems bipolar.

 

[brenatevi]

America is like an insecure bully, someone says something demeaning about your manliness so you have to throw a few punches to prove them wrong/save face? Why do you let what others say get to you? I don't want just one country to have absolute power over the other, I don't want another country to fill the shoes of another. I would like to see more than one country co-operating with others to reach a peaceful goal, not just one running around trying to solve others problems. You know why other countries complain about America not getting involved? Because they are too use to America doing their dirty work and when it's all said an done they'll blame the shit on you anyway.

I dunno the UN with teeth did a pretty good job of stopping Slobodan Milosevic. The problem is that because the UN is toothless now trying to get anything done through it (like say, Iran or North Korea) is a laughable gesture. with no real force to back up the threats and sanctions rogue nations can continue to play a dangerous game of chicken.

The better question is what you think would work better since you seem to have the inside track on how useless the UN is. And I don't mean that in a hostile way, I am honestly curious, even though you seem to make it clear that apparently the US is the only one who can do anything, which is funny since ever since 2000 we have done nothing. We didn't even really stop the Taliban.

One country should not police the rest, that isn't smart or safe.

For one, you misremember the Slobodan Milosevic events. That wasn't the UN, but NATO that dismantled Serbia.

For two, in answer to both of you, the situation is where you have one nation being effectively the police of the world is not ideal, so I agree with you. In an ideal world, the United States wouldn't be in the position it's in now, but then again in an ideal world, we wouldn't have had WW1 and WW2, nor the problems we have now. And I didn't say the US has really done anything, although I will admit that I sort of implied it.

But we still have to deal with the reality of "Pax Americana." How do we dismantle it gently? How do we wean everyone off depending on the United States? I don't know. As I "hinted"- no, I state outright, I don't think the UN as it is now, is the answer. And I don't think an organization like it will succeed in the near future.

So you asked, "Why do I think that?" To answer your question Ace, I'm going to ask you a question in return, "What has the UN accomplished?" Well, it didn't stop Darfur. It did nothing of substance in Somalia. Bosnia was NATO. Both Iraq and Iran had their nice little war for almost 10 years. And let's not forget the Iraq Food For Oil corruption. The Korean Police Action was a bust. I'm sure I could go to wikipedia and legit history books for more.

From what I've seen of history, the only thing the UN did well was keep the US and USSR talking during the really bad years of the Cold War, and even then they had "hot lines" to each other without the UN.

As for a UN with power... let me indulge in a worst case scenario for why a UN with teeth would be bad: someone like Hitler or Stalin in charge of the UN. Hope you can sleep tonight.

As for everything above, I'm just a guy with a mouse, keyboard, an obsession with history, and full of his own opinions. If you can find an answer that doesn't give undue power to any particular group, more power to you. I wish you all the luck.

 

[brenatevi]

True. I mean, America seems to help out alot in Africa, but screws over the middle East and central Asia countries. Unless they are run by friendly mass murdering dictators. To be fair, you're country's foreign policy seems bipolar.

Sorry for the double post, but the US forgot its medicine for the last 50 years.

On the serious side, Middle East and Asia... Huh, could it have to do with oil? Oil means money, and I'm the first to admit that Americans get funky in the head when lots and lots of money is involved.

 

[ottenni]

The world isn't big enough for that to be possible. It would be good however if the US started putting more emphasis on soft power than on hard power. That would do a great load of good.

 

[Doug]

True. I mean, America seems to help out alot in Africa, but screws over the middle East and central Asia countries. Unless they are run by friendly mass murdering dictators. To be fair, you're country's foreign policy seems bipolar.

Sorry for the double post, but the US forgot its medicine for the last 50 years.

On the serious side, Middle East and Asia... Huh, could it have to do with oil? Oil means money, and I'm the first to admit that Americans get funky in the head when lots and lots of money is involved.

Well, true about the Middle East, but Asia? Not so much.

 

[theshadavid]

According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, covered in a recent article of the Centre Daily Times, 49% of Americans (the highest percentage in decades) now believe that the U.S. should "mind its own business."

Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing? Would the U.S. and the World be better off if we just keep to ourselves for a little while?

A recent study has shown that 100% of Americans don't really care what other countries think of them.

Can't be 100% exactly, because I care.

he's on to me...

And why would you care what any country thinks of your country so long as it doesn't put you in danger?

 

[Danpascooch]

YES, why do we have to get involved in overseas matters that do not concern us anyway?

That is how world wars get started, someone attacks someone, an ally of the defending nation jumps in, then an ally of the attacking nation jumps in ect ect

 

[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?

 

[Amnestic]

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.