It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 11:50 AM

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

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.

worse no bush is war hungry 2 wars already and a third coming up i dont think things will get worse if he goes most likely better maybe not alot but atleast it will be better.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 11:52 AM
A president can not be judged soley on the number of wars s/he has started. Granted, it doesnt play positive on him, but i call bush a terrible president because of his domestic policies, and his overall stance on foreign policy.

Believe me, things can get a lot worse for US and citizens globally in the future, especially with the comming battle over life giving natural resources.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 12:10 PM
Good thread. I'd just like to chime in a wee bit, if you don't mind.

Isolationism is going to be a popular movement here in the US. The fact is, that if we didn't send oil overseas, or our other products, then we wouldn't need to rely on those in the middle east and elsewhere who have a less than favorable opinion os us.

Also, becoming more isolationist in nature would likely result in some of the grudges against the US having time to simmer down a bit. For those of you who regularly travel abroad, you should know what I'm talking about.

I feel that we've been getting "too involved" in everyone else's business for quite a while now. This involvement has led to much of the anti-US hostility that we are experiencing today.

Now onto my next point. The more we rely on other nations, the greater danger we are in if that wish to hurt us in the future. The following are JUST EXAMPLES. I by no means am saying this is going to happen.

ex: China, who imports much of our food could poison us through their products, killing millions. With much of our military abroad, we'd be ripe for an attack, at this point.

ex: Iran attacks our allies. We must respond, so we take more troops from the homeland, many who have already had several tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have oil, so do their allies, Venezuela. Since we've been shipping much of our own resources overseas, our reliance on the foreign market puts us in a more vulnerable situation.

ex: Much of our material goods, electronics, as well as our military weaponry is no longer built or manufactured in the US. Big business has taken the cheaper route of having a great deal of the production work be done by foreign workers.

ex: Much of what comes into our ports is checked abroad, and not again once it reaches here. Smuggling weapons, or foreign fighters would not be terribly difficult, especially if those looking to do ushard were patient enough to put years of prep into it.

ex: If so much as .001% of those crossing the border illegally were terrorists, foreign military, or criminal in nature, they're already here and poised to launch an attack.

In all of these various areas, our openess has exposed us to danger. I'm sure someone who knows more about the situation could go into even more firghtening detail of the possibilities. Can't forget how much nuclear material that once belonged to the Soviets is now currently unaccounted for. You can't tell me none of our enemies has gotten ahold of any of it.

Now, if we were more isolationist in nature, many of these types of threats would be eliminated, as we would no longer be relying on foreign powers.

However you can't forget, we were pretty isolationist before WW2. It just took one attack for the whole country to jump into action. However, back then we did it right. Most of our production was done here. We didn't rely on others, however, much of the world relied on the US' support. A strategically superior position. Today, we still produce a lot, but it goes overseas, it doesn't stay here.

We could potentially return to a more self-reliant posture, but in order to do so, our "free market" would have to be changed a bit so that big business could not take advantage of foreign labor.

Now, I am by no means an expert, nor do I claim to be. I'm just trying to make it clear that strategically, our reliance on other nations has weakened our stance, and our current foreign policy has made many enemies.

Do with this ramling what you will.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 12:19 PM
You make some interesting points, but as ChrisF231 already said back on page one, the US was not an isolationist nation prior to WWI or WWII. See my link Instances of US intervention, 2004 for a near complete list.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 12:38 PM
Well, for one thing, I think one of the things that did it's best to pull us out of isolation was the attack on Pearl Harbor. Notice that before that we were mostly isolationist.

During World War I we stayed out for most of it until the British had the Lusitania sunk, thus dragging us into the war.

Then we returned to isolationism, and we stayed out of World War II up until we got attacked on Pearl Harbor. Basically we snapped, and went overboard with revenge on Japan.

From then on we've been intermingling in the world's affairs, and we became paranoid and began attacking multiple countries for various reasons, such as to prevent the spread of communism.

But now, do I think isolationism is a good thing? Well, no. I tend to think of things on a worldly scale, I think being selfish is bad. Its just the type of intermingling with the world's affairs we've been doing as of late has been, well, negative.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 01:10 PM
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth

The irony of your initial post.

If America had as you said left the world alone it would be a much better place to live.
Unfortunately you look at your country with rose tinted glasses.

Do some good hard re-search and you will come to a totally different conclusion

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 01:19 PM
It seems no one reads links. The US was not and isolationist power.

Here is a short list from 1798 and on:

1798-1800 -- Undeclared Naval War with France
1801-05 -- Tripoli.
1806 -- Mexico
1806-10 -- Gulf of Mexico
1810 -- West Florida (Spanish territory)
Skipping ahead because theres an instance of military conflict practically every year
1899-1901 -- Philippine Islands
1900 -- China.
1903 -- Honduras.
1910 -- Nicaragua.
1912 -- Panama
1915-34 -- Haiti.
1917-18 -- World War I. On April 6, 1917, the United States declared war with Germany and on December 7, 1917, with Austria-Hungary.

you get the point. Instances of armed action drench US history painting a far from isolationist picture of US history.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by InSpiteOf]

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Kacen
During World War I we stayed out for most of it until the British had the Lusitania sunk, thus dragging us into the war.

Well, i've never heard that one before

Why must everything be a plot by someone or some country.
Sometimes things are just what they are.
Britain did not sink the Lusitania to drag the US into WW1, a German U-Boat sunk it in on May 7th 1915, USA entered WW1 April 6th 1917, nearly 2 full years later.

In response to InSpiteOf,

As replied to earlier,
US foreign policy wasn't of an isolationalist approach but general domestic opinion was very much pro isolationalism.
I very much doubt anything much will alter in the near future.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 01:40 PM
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth

Since just after the dawn of the twentieth century, the USA has belonged to the Bank of England via the Federal Reserve Bank scam, and every American citizen is just a piece of stock.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 04:28 PM
reply to post by InSpiteOf

It was my point that after WW1 we had a more isolationist attitude, when compared to after WW2. Now, we still engaged in trade, in that time period, and were involved militarily well before WW2. However, for that window between WW1 and WW2, the general attitude was far more isolationist that it's been since WW2. Since the country's birth it has never been truely isolationist, but at various times, our involvement was more limited, and since WW2 our reliance upon others has surely increased many-fold.

I probably won't reply again, because I'm not enough of a scholar on the subject for further debate.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 04:49 PM

Originally posted by xmotex
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.

True,xmotex.. There is an isolationist mentality among the citizenry and
I believe eventually, it will filter into our political thought as well.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 06:30 PM
Isolationism? Sounds like a great idea: no us soldiers everywhere & specially where they are not welcome'd,no drama,no "loan crach" because no money wasted in futile wars in the first place and a loads of good reasons i might forget.Unfortunately that will not happen anytime soon.Amerikkka still need to protect its interests outside its territory whether it's for selling arms or to make sure its citizens have whatever resources needed that can't be directly exploited within the U.S soil.Plain & simple.

But, i like the idea a lot so i flag this thread.(yeah i know i like pushing the first junkie i find in the hole *don't hate the player, hate the game)

[edit on 22-8-2007 by themaster1]

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:10 PM
Read your History, it was called the Monroe Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine

it served quite well for 100 years, we can still have trading partners and stay out of the Politics of other countries, I think it's a Grand Idea, and I would support it, also we need to Move the U.N. aboard a ship and get them Off US soil.........

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:15 PM
reply to post by InSpiteOf

in most if not all of your cited cases we were "asked" for help, we didn't go in on our own accord, So yes we were not getting "involved" for political reasons

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:23 PM
We really should avoid "entangled alliances", isolationism on a large scale is impractical but, at least as far as military action is concerned, could be a good thing... the USA acts like its the greatest thing since sliced bread and goes around policing the world and making enemies all over the place...

It was a good policy prior to WW1 until the Zimmerman Note, and before WW2 prior to Pearl Harbor, but I don't know if it would work now or not, either way something must be done and invading all sorts of countries to supposedly "spread democracy" doesn't seem like the thing to do...

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 08:59 PM
America cannot go the "Isolation" route while it is addicted to foreign oil. Till that problem is addressed, America must, I repeat must, stay involved on the world stage. If our dependence on foreign oil weren't an issue, then it would be conceivable for America to Shut the doors. Even then the reprecussions would be tremendous for America and the rest of the World. Like it or not, we are in a interconnected world.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:29 PM
Pavil touches on one of the (many) reasons that "Isolationist America" isn't a workable idea at this point. A nation that imports the majority of its energy isn't in a position to cut ties with the rest of the world.

Unfortunately for the Isolationists, the problem doesn't stop with oil. Take a look at the number of cars and trucks on the roads next time you're out and about. Notice how many of them have 'non-US' badging? The ones that do have 'US' badging (Ford, GM, etc) are mostly assembled overseas, or rely on parts from overseas. The sad truth is that there aren't any 'American' cars. The US steel industry *might* be able to meet domestic demand, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on that. Same hymn, different verse: Consumer electronics and parts for same are primarily imported. Same hymn, yet another verse: The US textile / garment industry isn't remotely up to meeting demand.

In other words, we *could* change our policies and go isolationist....if we could come up with an energy supply (Perhaps some of those "Free Energy" advocates could step up to the plate and actually demonstrate, rather than pontificate?), a steel industry, a manufacturing sector, an electronics sector, and a textile sector that would meet domestic demand...or we could just regress to a very odd America full of naked people (that' a mixed blessing) without cars (again, a mixed blessing) all looking for work because of the total collapse of the manufacturing, technology, and agricultural sectors of the economy (bad things all 'round).

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:40 PM
No! America was never isolationist!

Isolationism is not non-interventionism.

Non-interventionism is the idea that you don't, well, intervene. You don't play world police, you don't get into entangling alliances (World War I anyone?). It makes everyone happy because you don't take sides when you don't have to.

However, non-interventionism says nothing about positive relationships. Trade, for example, is highly encouraged - it makes everyone richer, stimulating the economy and raising standards of living. In fact, it's a deterrent to those who would like to attack you. By attacking you, they'd actually hurt their own economy, since you are a trading partner.

Don't get it mixed up! Isolationism is archaic and never results in a powerful nations. Non-interventionism, however, is the only just and moral way to interact with the rest of the world - and it just happens to be the safest and most beneficial to the economy as well.

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 12:28 AM
Thanks for saying this SoT. You are quite correct. Isolationism is the ONLY viable solution for American's being able to keep their rights as American's.

The government of the United States unlawfully and without OUR approval thrusts ALL OF US onto the world's stage and put us ALL at risk of harm in the process.

If we would draw into our shell that is North America and cease sending "aid" to every other country on the planet and focus our efforts on the HOMELAND and ONLY THE HOMELAND, we, as a people, would be much better off.

The first step, I feel, is to oust those in "power" here that are intent on keeping us Israel's attack dog.


posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 12:32 AM
I think Isolation would be a good idea for USA, why? It is simple you can take
the time to re-stabilize your economy, less chance of terrorists unless they
are already in the US, and work out any problem your country has.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in