Isolationism Is America's Answer

When America was formed in 1776, it was formed without any obligation to a world that, even then, was out of control. However, throughout the last two centuries, it has somehow become incumbent upon America to respond to ever disaster and have relation with every nation in the world.

Now, we live in a world that has turned its menacing eye upon America, and in their ignorant indignation, have decided to attack us. Well, there is only one solution for America, and that solution has a name. The name is isolationism.

There is no need for America to continue to have military personnel spread all over the world, whenour own national security is a question. Why protect people who despise us, when our own national borders are not even secure? Yet, that is exactly what is occurring.

Then you have people who practice the "blame America first" tactic very liberally. Somehow, according to some rather skewed minds, everything that goes on is somehow America's fault. Ironically, even if America does choose isolation, somehow these people will find reasons to blame America for their own corrupt governments and way of life.

I suggest that America, over the next 5-10 years, begin to withdraw from the world scene. Sit back, and let it play out. We should secure our own nation, and to hell with the rest. Let them fend for their own.


[edit on 22-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Not only do I think America should become isolationist, I think it ultimately will.. The indicators are certainly pointing in that direction.

Ordinary Americans are increasingly indifferent to the classic British posture of leveraging US power, money and blood for global stability. They’ve sacrificed enough young soldiers recently for the abstraction of a war on terror. Last week the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed what was essentially a symbolic motion declaring the intent of the US not to have permanent bases in Iraq

America's Real Hope

As the article states, not only is the public's opinion starting to turn towards this, so are politicians in the U.S.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Most here will probably think, "Well, when he is talking about isolationism, he is really talking about non-intervention." No, when I say isolationism, I mean exactly that, isolationism.

America cannot continue to have relations with the rest of the world, and expect to exist. Sooner or later, if we continue down the road we are on, we are either:

(A) Going to be hit with nuclear weaponry

(B) See a decline in current living standards.

To most American, neither event is acceptable. Americans have had an isolationist mentality, in my opinion, for the last 20-30 years. It is just now starting to seep into our political spectrum. Most Americans couldn't care less, for better or worse, what happens as long as it doesn't directly affect them.

Once this mindset gets firmly implanted into our political dichotomy, America will be a non-player in world events. I honestly believe that is why there is no evidence, for those who believe in biblical prophecy, for America's participation in "Armageddon." I think by that time, America will have essentially told the rest of the world to do as it will, and maintained a cold, distant stance from events occurring.





[edit on 22-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 22-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

This topic is just plain and simply idiotic, sorry. If the US wanted to be in isolation, they could have done it quite easily decades ago. They are persistent in being involved in the affairs of others, so what makes you think they would just switch it off and live in isolation?

During his State of the Union address, President Bush warned Americans about the lure of “isolationism.” The president mentioned “isolationism” or “isolation” four times, warning that the strategy offered only “false comfort” that would result in “danger and decline.” By contrast, the president explained his own position clearly: “The future security of America depends on…the end of tyranny in our world.” But who are these isolationists, and what is it that they are proposing?

Who says?

Why is it that people like Bush, and many others, seem to think an isolationist mentality is harmful to America? What do they base this on? America, before WWI, and after, were fairly isolationist. I don't see where America was in such trouble. Sure, there was the depression (1929-1939), but that wasn't solely for America,and it certainly wasn't attributable to any American isolationist tendencies.

Perhaps one of you would like to point out how "wrong" I am in regards to this. Honestly, I am open to CIVIL discussion on this. Tell me why I am wrong in thinking that America would be better off if it were to withdraw from the world scene. Any takers?

Because it wouldnt happen! What part of it arent you understanding? No one would allow, and no one is going to do it. Theres no hypothetical here. Whether its harmful or not, its never actually going to happen - no one, especially Bush, is even thinking about the idea.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by 3_Libras]

Originally posted by 3_Libras
This topic is just plain and simply idiotic, sorry. If the US wanted to be in isolation, they could have done it quite easily decades ago. They are persistent in being involved in the affairs of others, so what makes you think they would just switch it off and live in isolation?

Apparently, you haven't read any of the links that I presented and aren't very acquainted with the American populace's attitude.

Originally posted by 3_Libras
Because it wouldnt happen! What part of it arent you understanding? No one would allow, and no one is going to do it. Theres no hypothetical here.

Please do show me the evidence of what you are saying!!! You base that on our current status rather than where we are heading... Read the links before you reply, please. Thank ya

Besides, I am approaching this more from the stance of this is what should happen...

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by 3_Libras
Because it wouldnt happen! What part of it arent you understanding? No one would allow, and no one is going to do it. Theres no hypothetical here.

Please do show me the evidence of what you are saying!!! You base that on our current status rather than where we are heading... Read the links before you reply, please. Thank ya

Lol, I dont have to show you any evidence. I cant belive you are actually trying to convince anyone that America would be better off. Sure, hell, they could become the best damn country in the world if they did it. They could open up doors to heaven and find the answers to life. You know what problem is though? They, thats right, "America"...dont want to be isolationists! OTHERWISE, they wouldnt be involved in every single god damn conflict and foreign affair that presents itself. QUITE CLEARLY, this to me is evidence that what you're saying is just utter trash. Good day

Originally posted by 3_Libras
QUITE CLEARLY, this to me is evidence that what you're saying is just utter trash. Good day

And that is your OPINION, which,. is apparently not even worth voicing if you can't do it civil...Which, QUITE CLEARLY, you cannot...By the way, you have a good day too... Oh, by the way, may God bless.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

in the post cold-war era, america HAS to assert itself in the international system to further consolidate its status as the only world super power. by taking an isolationist approach, this strategy would obviously greatly jeopordize its current position as that power.
the machine that is the US will only continue to intertwine itself in these affairs - particularly militarily - to further this cause, and to snuff out any aspirations that the moderate powers might have at challenging the current position of the US.
this is from a US perspective mind you, and not exactly my opinions, more so just my observations.

my first post from a long time reader

peace

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth


The majority of US citizens favoured isolationism before and during WW1, however, America was drawn into WW1 in 1917.
After WW1 the majority opinion in US again was to stay out of "European" affairs. The US still had to trade with other countries which resulted in them eventually being drawn into WW11.
Post WW11 the US has insisted upon taking up the predominant role in world politics and affairs.
If the US now wishes to withdraw from this pre-eminent role then they must be self sustainable and cease trading with other countries. Unless this were achievable then the US would find themselves being drawn into world affairs and in turn disputes and conflicts.
Can the US maintain the standard of living etc it currently has without trade? I suspect not.
Could a NAU? Possibly.

Would the world be a worse place without US involvement in world affairs?
I suspect so.

Isolationist? LMFAO

US Marines marched through the streets the world over before, during and after WW1.

- Spanish American War in 1898
- Philippine Insurrection from 1899 - 1914
- Nicaragua in the 1920s
- Mexico in 1914 (US Navy attack on Veracruz and the Marines landed and raised the US flag over the city)
- Mexico in 1916 - 17
- Dominican Republic about 3 or 4 times
- Haiti in 1914 - 17
- Attack on the Kangwah Forts in Korea in 1870
- Perdicaris Incident in Morocco in 1904 (US Marines land and attack the Sultan's palace after an American citizen is killed by Arabs)
- US forces along with British and French forces fought in the Russian Civil War in 1919 on the side of the "White Russians" (anti communists and monarchists)

Hows that for so called isolationism?

This is only a very brief list. Im sure there is a heck of alot more to add.

reply to post by ChrisF231


The point is that the majority public opinion in the US was for non-involvement in world disputes, however as you have so clearly highlighted the US trade requirements necessitated continued involvement including military action, regardless of domestic public opinion.
Why would it be any different now or in the foreseeable future?

yup that is a good idea i think things really would change because america is the center of attention meaning everyone hates them, and they are caught up with so much things in the world but places like iraq is your fault shouldnt of went there in the first place and there would not of been this mess or al qadea your fault cia funded osama one thing i agree to a point but you made this mess osama iraq (iran) terrorism its usas fault and you should clear it up not get the rest of the world in your mess

reply to post by manzoor


No, everyone doesn't hate USA. Yes, we disagree with some of their policies, not all of them.

Iraq, all USA fault. How come? Can't see how you can blame America for Shiites killing Sunni's and vice versa, that's obviously an ARAB thing.
Arabs killing each other because of their religion, not American.
Grow up and accept at least some responsibility for your own actions.

Yes, they should help clear it up, the hard thing is how without leaving Iraqi's and others slaughtering each other.

Apologies for getting slightly off thread but.....

[edit on 22-8-2007 by Freeborn]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Why is it that people like Bush, and many others, seem to think an isolationist mentality is harmful to America?

Its not that it would be harmfull to America, its that it would be harmful to the power class in America to become isolationist. You dont protect overseas Multi-National investments with a policy of isolation, you protect them with the USMC, the US Navy, and the US Air Force.

You glossed over the fact that people in the US want a policy of non-intervention, well I think that is exactly what the US needs. Non-intervention does not mean weakness in foreign policy, it just means not going to war, launching counterinsurgencies, and counter-intelligence programs abroad in order to protect Multi-National Corporate interests.

That is, afterall, at the heart of all US interventions.

BTW, for a relativly complete list of US interventions, this is a great link
Congressional Service Report, 2004

And people please, seperate the people from the government, as often times, their interests do not intersect.

Edit to add: You are correct, there is a strong contingent of "Blame America first" out there. Many of them have no Idea why they blame the US for the worlds problems, but on the flip side, many people (in places like south america, central america, and the middle east) understand the nasty dynamics of us intervention and US foreign capital penetration. Many people out there have experianced first hand the brutality of US state power, and the class interests it supports.

All in all, some are misguided, others have a very legitimate complaint.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by InSpiteOf]

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by manzoor

 

No, everyone doesn't hate USA. Yes, we disagree with some of their policies, not all of them.

Iraq, all USA fault. How come? Can't see how you can blame America for Shiites killing Sunni's and vice versa, that's obviously an ARAB thing.
Arabs killing each other because of their religion, not American.
Grow up and accept at least some responsibility for your own actions.

Yes, they should help clear it up, the hard thing is how without leaving Iraqi's and others slaughtering each other.

Apologies for getting slightly off thread but.....

[edit on 22-8-2007 by Freeborn]

well you are right about the sunnis killing shia whos fault erm usa why because they invaded iraq and now look at it there mess and what i ment by hating america is there govt not most people most americans are not bad apart from a few.
and it is americas fault alot of things are like i mentioned help to the rise of osama why doesnt the news mention that. supporting iraq in the iran-iraq war millions left dead giving weapons and possibly wmds to israel threatning every muslim country in the mid east.
terrorism americas fault there would never of been terrorism if bin laden was not supported by america and then left.
why the muslims hate west george w bushs fault.
why do so many people have to die eg: soldiers in iraq and muslims(civlians) bushs what i dont understand why the hll the un allowed it from what i see un did nothing like they doing to iran puttign santions why bush said we dont even have evidence they are trying to make a bomb least they followed the nnpf (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) which israel doesnt follow.

reply to post by InSpiteOf


I understand, and partially agree with your sentiments but I suspect it would be difficult to have a strong foreign policy without getting involved in world affairs.
Could the US sustain itself without trading? I don't know but I suspect not, and as result as soon as those trade interests are threatened you will become involved. It is self perpetuating.

The only way the US, or any nation for that matter, could be truly isolated would be by being self sufficient and not reliant on trade goods.

Could a NAU be self sustainable, it's certainly more likely but i'm not sure of Mexican and Canadian resources.

Would it be beneficial if the US were to be more isolationist, hell, if we all kept our noses out of each others businesses we'd probably just turn against each other internally and the world would be consumed with scores of small and petty arguements.