It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Isolationism Is America's Answer

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Certainly the populist American opinion is one of Isolationism. The question then becomes how Isolationist to become. Militarily I dont think we should be basing our troops in any other countries, the time for that has passed, its time for Americans to come home and fix up the broken infrastructure of our nation and let other countries fend for themselves.

I say we should trade with any country in the world that wishes to trade with us in good faith. Those countries that espouse an Anti American bent we should not trade with nor should we have any embassy there. There is no reason to trade with any country that is hostile to us nor any reason to have diplomatic relations with them.

Where would we get oil from I would suggest any non OPEC nation, buy it from Russia and Canada and open up areas in our own country that have oil. Would be good for the Russians and The Canadians and would allow for our withdrawal from the mid east. I dont consider that Russia is actually an enemy and I dont see why we have to have the polarity that is developing now.

US Territories in the Pacific and the Carribean need to be given thier independence as time has long passed to be maintaining far flung territories without making them states.

The United States needs to withdraw from any military treaties it is in at the present. They tend to get us into wars we dont want and usually for the most part our allies dont pull thier own weight.

The United States needs to remove itself from the UN because it is hostile to our interest and much of the world regards it as just a US tool. Removing ourselves from the UN solves both problems. I cant justify the fact that members of the CIS have votes in the UN while individual American States do not. If these Russian States have votes so should the American States as should places such as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Geneva would be a fine place to put the New UN Headquarters.

thats my view of it




posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by retna
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.


we've got china now, so please feel free to cut all ties and hide from the rest of the world (may i suggest some type of iron curtain arrangement).






posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I totally agree S.O.T.!I was just about to post a thread advocating the US withdrawal from N.A.T.O.but you basicly beat me to it.Let the euro's sink or swim on their ungrateful selves for a change.As ive just said in another thread these people are criticizing every US act until the next invader attacks them then its drop what your doing and come save us!BS!Withdraw all forces and weapons from europe,let them pay for their own defense and let the chinese,russians or middle-easterns have them and good riddance!



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by manzoor
 


I am sorry Manzoor, Sunni's and Shiite's have been killing each other for generations;

en.wikipedia.org...

It is impossible to blame the US for that.

There have been acts of Arab / Muslim terrorism for decades now, it's not just about Bush / Bin Laden etc.
I haven't got the answers for peace in the Middle East and I agree why should so many UK / US / Muslim citizens die?
If I had the answers I'd be screaming them from the rooftops but some things are certain;
it's naive and ignorant to blame the US solely for the problems in the Middle East and if they were to pull out of the region, unconditionally, with no further involvement whatsoever, their would be a bloodbath the likes of which the world hasn't seen for decades.
Muslims must accept their responsibility for their contribution to the whole affair. Something they appear incapable of doing.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Again apologies for being off thread, but contrary to belief I do not agree with the US bashing that sometimes occurs without reason and I for one feel the world would be a much unsafer place without US presence and involvement and that they have a lot to offer to the continued development of mankind.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
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.

I understand your assessment and agree that its not a black and white situation. There is no reason a nation (such as the US) should not or cannot protect its investments abroad (if those investments are actually benefiting the people of the US), the issues arise when intervention preceeds the investment. In other words, when an intervention happens in order to create investment opportunities, there is a serious problem with the foreign policy in play. Again, i am simplifying a very complex issue, but you have to start somewhere.

It is historical fact that the US is the worlds foremost interventionist country. Very few of the international interventions that required direct US military intervention were in the defensive class. Even fewer (if any at all) interventions that involved proxy/mercinary warfare and population attrition were in defense of direct US interests (again investments that are directly related to the population of the US).


Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
The United States needs to remove itself from the UN because it is hostile to our interest and much of the world regards it as just a US tool. Removing ourselves from the UN solves both problems.


A better solution would be a reform of the UN, its charter, and its responsiblities. The idea behind the UN is great, but the idea of the UN needs to match the actions of the UN and its members.



Originally posted by xfile
I was just about to post a thread advocating the US withdrawal from N.A.T.O

I personally want the full disbandment of all N.A.T.O forces. Afterwhich, I want Bill Clinton and NATO commanders to be held for war crimes for their part in the Kosovo/Yugoslaivian conflict.

I know, its a position not many share, but i stick by it.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I love this debate - smart points all around.

Anology...it doesn't matter how beautiful your house is if you live in a crappy neighborhood.

We have to be concerned and participate in world affairs to protect our own interests whether that might be trade, security or something else. But I feel we should not act as arbiter and policeman for every issue that comes down the pike.

Not to mention our attention is completely diverted from our own domestic issues: education, healthcare, infrastructure, tax reform (Fairtax!) and immigration reform. Our own house is looking pretty shabby, if you will. What will we leave our children?

We can't just put lipstick on this pig and call it pretty. We have to really fix what's wrong, internally, with our country. And, unless there is a global threat, natural disaster or a direct challenge to our homeland security, the rest of the world be damned.

I'm all for being more self sufficient. I'd gladly pay a bit more to put Americans to work and be less dependent on foreign interests. Scr*w China.

I fear if we don't strike a more realistic balance we will end up crippled on all fronts, foreign and domestic.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I think isolationism is the wrong term to use, since by English usage by neologisms its connotation is pejorative. When you utter the word you can almost taste the sense of powerlessness in rebuttal. It is almost magically unanswerable in debates, it is like saying "you isolationist fool."

Non-intervention is more appropriate for the intent of the issue. The USA funded itself for more than 100 years with tariffs and quite wisely. We made it a production powerhouse in the world, while supplying ourselves with goods, and creating an industrial giant second to none. Global merchantilism creates massive problems all over the world. It is rooted in a "me first," economic philosophy rather than small communities supporting a commonwealth. You can see this obsession with destroying local production by subsidies everywhere. People can no longer feed themselves in Africa. The defects of global merchanitilism are too abundantly evident, while continuing to centralize the means of production in various slave labor bare subsistence value added goods coming from places such as China. America has been dying a slow death by the destruction of its manufacturing base for decades. Isolationism when you have nothing is not the answer, but sensible transitional strategies will require enough political will to overcome a burgeoning oligarchy that prints its own money. The commonwealth better recover that or it is finished by the elementary facts of geometric progression. Interest free capital owned by and for the people, is the way to go.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by SkipShipman]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by manzoor
 


I am sorry Manzoor, Sunni's and Shiite's have been killing each other for generations;

en.wikipedia.org...

It is impossible to blame the US for that.

There have been acts of Arab / Muslim terrorism for decades now, it's not just about Bush / Bin Laden etc.
I haven't got the answers for peace in the Middle East and I agree why should so many UK / US / Muslim citizens die?
If I had the answers I'd be screaming them from the rooftops but some things are certain;
it's naive and ignorant to blame the US solely for the problems in the Middle East and if they were to pull out of the region, unconditionally, with no further involvement whatsoever, their would be a bloodbath the likes of which the world hasn't seen for decades.
Muslims must accept their responsibility for their contribution to the whole affair. Something they appear incapable of doing.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Again apologies for being off thread, but contrary to belief I do not agree with the US bashing that sometimes occurs without reason and I for one feel the world would be a much unsafer place without US presence and involvement and that they have a lot to offer to the continued development of mankind.


yes i do no that im sunni my self but before us went war tell me did you see sunnis killing shias in iraq tell me was it a blood bath.
yes america aint compleatly responsable but most things in the world they are dont tell me they aint responsable for terrorism after all they basicaly made osama funding him etc never would of been 9/11 hate against muslims or wars it would of been alot differant you say with out americas it would be unsafer WRONG! look at it now it aint safe for **** go to iraq and tell me is it safe no america has caused alot of mess not all but alot more than other countries why do you think they are the big dady or have the right to police us who put them incharge of the world already blaiming iran another war looming over head and you still go with usa tell me this why do you not invade israel after all they have illgeal wmds yes say that the iranian president said wipe israel of the map but look at israel look at there war crimes they threaten every muslim country in the mid east say war does happen with iran say israel uses there nukes then what.
remember its your countries fault you funded them you gave them arms/bombs to kill civilians in the 2006 war you failed to crush hezbollah you just made things worse america smuggled bombs,lgbs and heavy bunker buster bombs to israel and look what they done.
america says russia selling arms to iran is wrong well what about america giving arms to israel why dont you stop that huh? oh yea only countries you like i see.

dont tell me it will be a better place with america policing it its NOT! you created osama you made muslims hate your country because of iraq and possibly iran you the people let it happen after 9/11 yes you were angry and wanted revenge and the pack of lies bush gave you you all went with it tell me will you make the same mistake when it comes to iran.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by manzoor
 


Step away from the edge there Manzoor and try to stay on topic. By the way...I don't think anyone on can objectively say the Middle East was rocking along just fine before the U.S. came along - at least not if they want to maintain any credibilty in a debate.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by manzoor
 


Step away from the edge there Manzoor and try to stay on topic. By the way...I don't think anyone on can objectively say the Middle East was rocking along just fine before the U.S. came along - at least not if they want to maintain any credibilty in a debate.


i wsnat trying to go off topic i was lead and repplied to a comment and no read my messages i did not say before america in mid east it was all merry and fine now end off back on topic sorry if i did go off topic



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by manzoor
 


Manzoor, I am British. I do not blindly agree with everything the US government or citizens say however, I genuinely feel that the majority of US citizens are well intentioned.
I don't think this is the correct forum to discuss the pro's and con's of american society or their involvement in world affairs.

It also isn't the correct forum to be discussing the utter mess which is the middle east at present.
But I will repeat, Shiites and Sunni's have been killing each other for centuries and Muslims have to accept their responsibility instead of blaming everyone else apart from themselves.
The age old hatred betewwen sects and clans is a massive contributory factor.

Iran had problems with the US well before Bin Laden, Kuwait, Saddam etc.
Look at Iran's attitude to the US when Ayatollah Khoemeni was alive and ruling.

If the US unconditionally pulled out of the Middle East then genocide would ensue. How responsible would that be.

Yes, there are issues surrounding Israel but there are no easy answers and putting the blame solely at the US, or even the UK's feet, is naive, ignorant and certainly not assissting any peace process.

Muslims must start accepting their role and responsibility in it all.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by manzoor
 


Manzoor, I am British. I do not blindly agree with everything the US government or citizens say however, I genuinely feel that the majority of US citizens are well intentioned.
I don't think this is the correct forum to discuss the pro's and con's of american society or their involvement in world affairs.

It also isn't the correct forum to be discussing the utter mess which is the middle east at present.
But I will repeat, Shiites and Sunni's have been killing each other for centuries and Muslims have to accept their responsibility instead of blaming everyone else apart from themselves.
The age old hatred betewwen sects and clans is a massive contributory factor.

Iran had problems with the US well before Bin Laden, Kuwait, Saddam etc.
Look at Iran's attitude to the US when Ayatollah Khoemeni was alive and ruling.

If the US unconditionally pulled out of the Middle East then genocide would ensue. How responsible would that be.

Yes, there are issues surrounding Israel but there are no easy answers and putting the blame solely at the US, or even the UK's feet, is naive, ignorant and certainly not assissting any peace process.

Muslims must start accepting their role and responsibility in it all.


going off topic and making me reply back last thing READ MY COMMENT i do agree shias and sunnis been fighting along time and actualy iran was allies with the west at one point i also am british and i dont think all americans are bad most are not and i didnt blame uk
and muslims do not blame every one else not our fault western media potrays the bad not the good go out side of western media!



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   


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.


Err, who cares?

Our status as "the only world super power" does absolutely nothing for the American people, it simply puts us at the top of the rest of the planet's target list.

I for one would be glad to see us give up on being GloboCop, give up on Empire and return to being the peaceable Republic our founders envisioned. I suspect most Americans would agree, if they ever had any real choice.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
OP is so wrong.

The last thing USA wants (I mean the government) is isolation.

They are implementing the North American Union (USA+Canada+Mexico).

In September 2000, the PNAC published a controversial 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century. This basically calls for USA to be the worlds "police".

Bush started adopting this report on 9/11 up until today and next with the attack on Iran. Read the report.



Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"


^^ aka 9/11.

There is nothing that will make USA addopt isolationism. Only a war were USA is defeated will make USA addopt isolationism. That might happen after USA attacks Iran.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
thats all we need another war yes if they do and its a defeat with iran america may just back off from the mid east but realy war huh it aint always the answer i dont think iran is making a bomb just back off



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by manzoor
 


I suspect that we have more common ground than both of us initially suspected.


I think that even if majority of US citizens desire a more isolationist approach, the "powers that be" will resist it.

A NAU could possibly be more isolationist due to less reliance on trade etc however, any NAU will only be used to enable continued and further manipulation of world events and facilitate a NWO or something similar and all that goes with it.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   
the bush admin i think has realy changed america for the bad nothing good has came out off them just war,death and hatred americans and we all dont need that but dont most americans dont want anything to do with mid east etc in the first place isolated america you are right it wont happen as much as i want america out of mid east etc but isolating america from the rest is a large step personaly i think america does have some decent people and when the bush admin goes things are most likely to improve



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pericle
OP is so wrong.

The last thing USA wants (I mean the government) is isolation.


I think the OP was referring to the population, not the government.
The government and the established political culture still clearly favor a policy of global interventionism.

The citizenry at large seem to have different ideas.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by manzoor
the bush admin i think has realy changed america for the bad nothing good has came out off them just war,death and hatred americans and we all dont need that but dont most americans dont want anything to do with mid east etc in the first place isolated america you are right it wont happen as much as i want america out of mid east etc but isolating america from the rest is a large step personaly i think america does have some decent people and when the bush admin goes things are most likely to improve


You havent followed US foreign policy and politics for long have you?

Bush is just a drop in the ocean of Multi-national foreign capital penetration and intervention. He serves the same goals as his father; as bill and hilary clinton; and as Reagan. US foreign policy decidedly comes down (and hard) on the side of democratic agitation, and always supports the multi-national corporate agenda. It is just a matter of historical fact. When Bush leaves, nothing will change for the better. It will stay the same, or get worse.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex



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.


Err, who cares?

Our status as "the only world super power" does absolutely nothing for the American people, it simply puts us at the top of the rest of the planet's target list.

I for one would be glad to see us give up on being GloboCop, give up on Empire and return to being the peaceable Republic our founders envisioned. I suspect most Americans would agree, if they ever had any real choice.


i agree with you, my post was just an observation of how the people in positions of power in the US since the end of the cold war have viewed this era - making sure that they cannot not be challenged on any number of fronts, and an isolationist strategy would put this at risk, from their perspective not mine.
of course its done nothing for the image of the US, and its the innocent masses that are as a result, made targets of the dangerous radical ideologies that have arisen mainly as a result of US foreign policy in a number of areas.
i fully endorse your second paragraph, because the state of affairs across the world is truely deplorable as a result of this, and of course many other factors. mechanisms for change really need to be addressed to help try and resolve some of the problems, but of course that is being completley idealistic ha ha.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by retna]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join