U.S. Isolation: Good or Bad?

[Connosaurus Rex]

I'm done with this way to many Europeans to argue an effective defense of my words[footnote]even though I still believe they are true[/footnote]

 

[brenatevi]

*cuts out all self-referential BS.

Indonesia is a chain of pacific islands. Not central Asia, like I said

As for China, that's a case of 1 superpower watching an emerging one.

Oops, my bad. Yeah, invading Afghanistan is like invading Russia: it's not going to end well for you.

 

[jpoon]

I think we should mind our own business, I also don't think it's a bad thing. Fuck globalism.

 

[brenatevi]

With Saddam, were they murdering themselves like they are now?
And dictators are not all bad, Hitler took Germany from bankrupt and eyebrow deep in debt to owning almost all of Europe in under a decade. Sure he had a few bad habits (like Jew-necide), but I don't think Obama could have matched that with 50 years and the modern U.S. army.

*eye twitches* Hitler had a FEW bad habits?! That's like saying Charles Manson was only a few fries short of a happy meal. Dear gods man, he wanted to de-populate Poland and Russia and fill it with a mythical creature known as the Aryan race! (OK, the Aryans existed, but not the race Hitler worshiped.)

And you're missing the real problem with modern dictatorships: corruption. If you can name a single dictatorship that exists today that isn't corrupt and murderous, I'll name you king of the Internet.

 

[Low Key]

I would love to see the American government and military mind it's own business. The world wouldn't go to hell, but it would give a lot of people much more appreciation of what they do to keep the world safe when it otherwise wouldn't be. And perhaps if other countries could handle things on their own instead of having America take the initiative everytime, maybe they wouldn't have to get involved at all.

 

[demoman_chaos]

*eye twitches* Hitler had a FEW bad habits?! That's like saying Charles Manson was only a few fries short of a happy meal. Dear gods man, he wanted to de-populate Poland and Russia and fill it with a mythical creature known as the Aryan race! (OK, the Aryans existed, but not the race Hitler worshiped.)

And you're missing the real problem with modern dictatorships: corruption. If you can name a single dictatorship that exists today that isn't corrupt and murderous, I'll name you king of the Internet.

Hitler just killed a few million Jews. In comparison to the US's war crime of giving hundreds of years of murderous radiation to 2 major cities in Japan due to mass murder of civilians via atomic bombs..... well.... Hitler's was worse but I am trying to point out that even the high and mighty US isn't perfect. Very few Americans are willing to admit the US isn't the best thing since sliced bread (I don't get that phrase, sliced bread really isn't that great compared to other things).

Name 1 politician today that isn't corrupt? Only 1 I can think of is Ron Paul, the only guy pushing to get rid of the even more corrupt Federal Reserve (a privately owned group of banking cartels that print and loan every single US dollar to the government at interest). Everyone else is out for votes and money. They give in to whoever pays the most or promises the most votes in the next election no matter the scenario (the Federal Reserve is one of the worst products of this corrupt system and is 100% UNCONSTITUTIONAL {just like the Patriot Act, which allows the government to search your home, hold you indefinitely, torture you, all without a warrant or telling you what is going on all because they think you could be a "terrorist"}).

The U.S. has too many problems on its homefront to think about everyone else. If the U.S. stopped all aid to Africa, stopped oppressing Middle-Easterners, and stopped playing daddy to everyone who they label as "victims" then the U.S. could solve all of its problems within a year. A stint of isolationism would help. Maybe while we are off doing our own thing there will a new world war we can join in late and take all the glory for winning (for the 3rd time).

 

[DracoSuave]

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.

No one is asking the US to pull out of everywhere that wants it there. What it is saying is USA needs to stop invading other countries for non-specified political interests.

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.

Bolded the important part for emphasis. And US got as much out of trade as any other. And foreign aid is not unilateral. It's an investment, a loan, not a simple hand out.

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.

What both ways? Helping allies in times of obvious strife is not the same thing as invading other countries for nebulous undefined political reasons. There's a broad difference between trading and defending allies you have treaties with, and 'liberating' countries and destabilizing the region. There's a broad difference between a call to arms to counter an attack against a treaty ally (what many countries did for the US after 9/11) and assassinating foreign dictators just to install US-'Friendly' dictators.

If you even suspect these are the same thing -at all- I suspect you need to think a bit more about this.

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.

And no one says this is a bad thing. You're sending humanitarian aid to countries that desire it. That's not interfering. That's being the good guy.

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).

Well, there's a reason for that. For the past decade, you ELECTED a leader that lied to you, that had a blatantly corrupt administration, and who acted in laws that destroyed your own constitution.

The rest of the world saw a country that was literally going insane because of a single terrorist attack. We watched your media turn vile and corrupt. We observed as your freedom of speech, that one quality that gives you moral authority to call yourself 'free' was being prorogued by extremists, calling anyone with an opinion desenting from the Party Line a non-patriot.

You watch a nation's government lie to its people, and toss away the very values that nation was founded on, and you start to doubt and mistrust that nation... not the people of that nation, but the leadership.

History teaches us that it is a very dangerous nation that trades reason for fear. And, so, the world watches the US, wary, and alert.

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.

You're a nation that, even now, has a national discourse based on extreme polarism, and fearmongering. That trades in reason for ignorance within its voters, and whose media is as biased as any totalitarian governments... just based on the corporate interest running it rather than on the government spin.

It's hard to trust America, when good Americans are doing nothing to steer their country the right way.

Yes, if America withdrew from world affairs that would be a bad thing, i think even the American haters accept that. However, perhaps if America showed some more restraint when it comes to "hard power", you would avoid some critisism. (I also acknowledge that the recent two wars were Bush's fault, and not a general fault of America)

The thing is, most of the world -doesn't- hate America. We hate the power structure that the political elite have set up in America so that the people are no longer feared by the government. We want to see America -BE- that nation OF the people that it once was. The fact it hasn't makes it a very scary neighbor.

Secondly, don't expect praise for doing good actions in the world like the tsunami incident, or indeed WW2 and Marshall aid. Other navies where when that tsunami struck, including the Royal Navy, but i have never heard any Britons clamoring for praise for our role in the incident. Likewise Europeans don't go around looking for recognition that we provide the majority of the worlds aid money. Britains (And i'm only using the Uk as an exhample because i know British history fairly well) don't go around wanting acclaim for stopping German imperalism in WW1, and saving the continent from Napoleon. Nor do we regret not being recognised for keeping the worlds oceons safe, free, and navigatable between 1815 and 1914. Further more, were not too fussed about the black Africans and SE Asians not thanking us for our extensive anti-slavery operations in the 19th century which virtually shut down the international slave trade. The fact is, countries have their heads to far up their own asses to give a damn about any other country that may be helping them.

Truth.

Also, a "good" action should not be done with the intention of expecting praise for it later on. A "good" action should be done regardless if one will be praised for, critised, or not acknowledged at all.

Indeed. America should continue to do good actions. It actually benefits America to do them.

America should not stop doing what is "good" simpily because it is not being praised for its actions.

Praise means nothing in Geopolitik anyways. Who cares if you are praised? That doesn't help Americans.

 

[Low Key]

{just like the Patriot Act, which allows the government to search your home, hold you indefinitely, torture you, all without a warrant or telling you what is going on all because they think you could be a "terrorist"}).

The government has never searched my house. How about yours? I'm not a fan of the extensiveness of the Patriot Act, but it's not like they are going from block to block knocking down doors.

 

[demoman_chaos]

The government has never searched my house. How about yours? I'm not a fan of the extensiveness of the Patriot Act, but it's not like they are going from block to block knocking down doors.

It is the fact they actually can that worries me, and that it passed despite being 100% unconstitutional (illegal search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.).

 

[Jak The Great]

We tried this before. It didn't work too well.

(see WWII)

 

[brenatevi]

*snip*
Name 1 politician today that isn't corrupt?

That's an interesting post. I'm not going to reply to the entirety, because I don't quite disagree with you, but I want to point out the real problem with corruption and dictatorships that you seemed to have missed. OK, politicians are corrupt; that has been known since the first caveman climbed on a rock and "Ugh ugh"ed his way into people's hearts, and then expected something in return for his "sacrifices." Or as Heinlein used to say "Rank Hath Its Priveleges."

So, why do I think corruption is a killer in a dictatorship as opposed in a democracy? The easy answer is: in a democracy, when a politician acts up, at least we can vote his corrupt arse out of office. Well, try (if enough people buy his BS, then guess what? He's staying. Unless he gets convicted of corruption, but there's a senator from my fair state that was serving out his term from a prison cell.{I think. I do know one of our reps was convicted of corruption.})

So any ways, let's say that the same thing happens in a dictatorship. What happens? Well, if he's a relative of El Presidente, good luck getting rid of him. Hell, he could be doing things extremely nasty, and he would be untouchable. Ude Hussein? And let's not forget that if anyone gets angry about the way the country is ran, the only way to change things is violently.

So, if you want a dictatorship, have it your way.