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: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Well, the treaty of Versaille had more to do with WW2 then anything else, really. However, this is not a thread about the causes and justifications of WW2.


I think it is pertinent that people understand that the current atmosphere in the U.S is certainly pointing to a developing restraint. To me, America should become isolationist until it can correct the problems that are here. Hell, we are concerned with what everyone else is doing, and we are rottening from the inside -out.




posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
For those of you who continue to say that "America was never isolationist," look at this.

American isolationism



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
For those of you who continue to say that "America was never isolationist," look at this.

American isolationism


As defined by its adherents themselves, isolationism had nothing to do with opposing American involvement in world economic, cultural, humanitarian, or even, to a much more limited degree, political affairs. Instead, being an "isolationist" in the 1930s meant that one wanted America to maintain an absolute neutrality in military-political conflict overseas, to keep its freedom of action in international security matters, and to avoid war at almost any cost.

That is non-interventionism and what I support 100%. I don't use the word "isolationism", because it often means economic and cultural isolationism as well.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
i gotta say, worldwide, i think a decision by the US to clean up its messes and withdraw would yeild such a large, collective sigh of relief that hurricanes would ravage the populated areas of the world for years to come. the US has the diplomatic mentality of a bulldog chewing thistles and seems to cause greater loss of life and devastation with every new involvement.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
[That is non-interventionism and what I support 100%. I don't use the word "isolationism", because it often means economic and cultural isolationism as well.


In other words, you really don't support what I am suggesting.


Because when I say isolationism, I basically do mean that America should cut itself away from the rest of the world. Of course, there would still be limited trade, but all of the intervention and humanitarian aid would cease.

While I don't necessarily think this should be on a permanent basis, I think that it would be good for America to "mind its own business" for 50-100 years.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
So many people want it both ways. They want America to take a non-interventionist stance, yet, still render aid. Is rendering aid not intervention? Certainly it is. Therefore, a TRUE non-interventionist state, would be, indeed is, isolationism.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I agree with a lot of things in the original post, these are things I've been thinking myself for a long time now.

America can not so much as cut the cheese without 7/8 of the world trying to analyze the contents of the gas and find a single fart molecule out of place so they can preach about how imperfect we are.

The U.S. needs to back off from things abroad so much and take care of things at home. Uncle Sam is tired and needs a nap.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by fweshcawfee
 



I suppose you summed up my stance pretty accurately in a few word. Kudos.
It's more than one line.



[edit on 24-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 



Hmmm...the thing you seem to forget here is that most of the US's wealth (read: corporate profits) come from exploiting foreign markets. How long do you think Dole would last without access to the plantations of south america? McDonalds without south american beef? Exxon without middle eastern oil? These corporates RUN the US - I can't see them buying this somehow...

J.


[edit on 24-8-2007 by jimbo999]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Jimbo, well, the America I envision certainly wouldn't be the America we know today. That is very true. Many of these corporations that you speak of would probably cease to exist. That is where trade would have to come into play.

While isolationism does indicate an indifference to what is occurring in other regions of the globe, it does not necessarily mean that we end all trade relations.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
You have not done your research man. America was not intended to be self sufficient it was meant to be self governing from England. America will never become isolationist, In fact if it did become isolationist the country by that time will not be America anymore. It will probably be split up.

But my point still is that America and every other country for that matter needs each other. At least right now and for the next 50 - 200 years will still be that way. Unless the NWO comes out and then its a different story.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
In other words, you really don't support what I am suggesting.

I was mainly referring to the pdf you linked.


Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Because when I say isolationism, I basically do mean that America should cut itself away from the rest of the world. Of course, there would still be limited trade, but all of the intervention and humanitarian aid would cease.

Not certain what "limited" means, but aside from that word, that's what I'm talking about and agree with.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I suppose the next question would be when to intervene.. I personally think that America should stay out of all affairs unless it directly involves us, for a while.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex


Had WW1 been less of a rout, WW2 might never have happened though.


The big problem with WWI was it was a stalemate. Lines were not moving and a lot of people were dying. A big part of this was technology had not advanced very far, and so the ability to fight an effective war is extremely poor, but in the next 30 years technology advanced leaps a bounds.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I suppose the next question would be when to intervene.. I personally think that America should stay out of all affairs unless it directly involves us, for a while.


I agree we need to let the dust settle for the next ten years. Spending over a year in Iraq I think they are more interested to finish their 2000 year holy war than to be free.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


May I suggest the you also post the quote of Mr. Washington: Do not entangle in forgien wars. Not exact, but close enough.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I think it would be irresponsible for America to up and leave countries they have invaded now. America is now responsible for those countries well being. Invade Iraq then take off and say screw you guys? America has an obligation to help those people now that their country has been invaded and destroyed.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Ninthaxis, while I am tempted to agree with you, I don't think America should be somewhere they are not wanted. Iraq doesn't want the U.S over there indefinitely. While I personally don't find what America has tried to do deplorable, the rest of the world does. Given that fact, America should step back and leave it alone.

I assure you, something will happen and the world will wonder "where America is." America should become less concerned about worldly affairs, and start correcting its own problems. Let other nations do the same.

Maybe I sound a bit selfish, but given the present world situation, that is just how I feel.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
The question that resides in most people's minds, I suppose, is whether America would still be a "superpower" in such a situation. My answer is, probably not. While it would still be a power, I think isolation would basically lend itself to indifference in the world spectrum.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Depends on how you define "superpower." Just because we wouldn't be constantly coercing people through military threats doesn't mean that we won't have a ton of economic power. Hell, as long as we keep trading, we'll probably be even richer. And likewise, just because we aren't intervening doesn't mean that our military has to be weak.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join