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

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).

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!

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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]