Originally posted by 3_Libras
OTHERWISE, they wouldnt be involved in every single god damn conflict and foreign affair that presents itself.

Heck, people would be glad if the only things the US responded to were conflicts and affairs that presented themselves. But in reality, they don't respond to those presenting themselves unless there is something serious to gain from it. Take the situation in Sudan.

Thing is, the US is creating problems all over the globe ON PURPOSE.

The entire situation in the middle east, the existence of Osama Bin Laden himself, its all documented and admitted political, military and financial chess playing to keep those countries from progressing to western levels and to get people like Osama bin Laden to fight wars for the US (Osama and Al-Quada were conceived by the CIA to fight the russians in Afghanistan).

And thats all just the tip of the iceberg.

The people running the US can not be mistaken for the people of the US, your right that maybe its better for the people of the US to turn more to isolation, but its the people of the US that keep electing these shady characters into power and allowing them to meddle in everyone else's affairs and causing conflicts all over the globe.

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]


What you suggest is what most of the world wish. The rest of the world is capable of looking after it's self!! Remember most of the other nations are alot older and wiser than the USA. If only the USA would stop interfering in everybody's affairs, the world sure would be a nicer place!!

I wish it would happen, but I don't hold out much hope.

Right now non-interventionism is a non-starter on the national political scene - the only openly anti-interventionist candidate is Ron Paul, and while he has a lot of grassroots support, he is being pointedly ignored by the corporate media. Most voters will probably never get to hear his message.

The fact is, there is simply too much money to be made mucking around in other countries' affairs - by defense contractors, energy conglomerates, etc. - for the choices of the average American to matter much. The people in power are trying to build an Empire, as far as they are concerned the original vision of the American Republic is quaint and obsolete.

Well I'll have to clarify my position, I'm personally not isolationist, just anti-interventionist.

I'm all for peaceful trade, just not unnecessary US involvement in foreign wars.

From a military point of view as other people have said, over the past few decades the US has systematically developed military bases throughout the world, not as a favour to other nations, but as a pre-cursor to world domination. I think that the sorry state of affairs in Iraq make it more than clear that military help from the US is probably the last thing that any country would want!

Its ironic that the fear-mongering that is being used by the Bush admin to control the American public into accepting the degredation of your civil liberties has been going on, on an international scale, for decades to encourage other countries to let the US build military bases on foreign soil, "Oooh, you'd better let us build a base in your country otherwise someone might attack you and you wouldn't want that would you?".

You're not in Iraq because they asked you to help them out, you're there because your Government has an agenda for that area. If US personnel are getting killed in another country, its not because they 'have' to be there, it's because your Government wants them there for a particular purpose that serves the Govt's ultimate goals or aims.

Tradewise, Arcticnull hit the nail on the head perfectly. Do you really have any idea how badly the US economy would be hit? You may have lots of oil, but you can't extract it quickly enough. Without foreign investment you wouldn't have the money to put the infrastructure in place to extract it, oil prices (in the US alone) would rise. Global companies such as McDonalds, Wal-mart and large financial houses would relocate to Britain or Europe, where they can trade with the rest of the world and benefit from cheaper oil prices, leading to mass unemployment in the US. The lack of investment, high oil prices and unemployment rates would inevitably lead to the worse stock market crash ever known but because of the USA's isolationist state it would not affect the rest of the world, and it would be irrecoverable. Skilled trades such as Doctors, Lawyers etc would leave the US in their thousands, headed across the world to Austrailia, Canada and Europe in order to escape the chaos unfolding in their own Country.

Actually yeah, close your borders and get the hell out of everyone elses countries, lets see how YOU do!


[edit on 26-8-2007 by cogger74]

Modern Rome cannot survive without protecting its so called interests because without its enforced trade policy its economy would be destroyed so whenever its needs are not met it creates a military solution.The world would be a better place if every nation kept its policies confined within their own borders.

Originally posted by cogger74

Actually yeah, close your borders and get the hell out of everyone elses countries, lets see how YOU do!


[edit on 26-8-2007 by cogger74]

I find it absolutely knee slapping funny that people in other countries, and some Americans, think we are somehow dependent upon them. It's beyond hilarious. I assure you, America could secure its border and stay to itself and still survive...

[edit on 26-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I find it absolutely knee slapping funny that people in other countries, and some Americans, think we are somehow dependent upon them. It's beyond hilarious. I assure you, America could secure its border and stay to itself and still survive...

[edit on 26-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Isn't the policy of Isolationism what the founding fathers desired for this country to begin with? Something about NOT getting involved in everyone else's affairs and maintain our independence by also limiting the amount of immigrants allowed?

Arcticnull outlines why trade isolationism is bad.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Isn't the policy of Isolationism what the founding fathers desired for this country to begin with? Something about NOT getting involved in everyone else's affairs and maintain our independence by also limiting the amount of immigrants allowed?

Kind of. It's better described as non-interventionism. "Isolationism" is a broad term, usually referring to something like Japan or China before their borders were opened. Instead, the safest and most prosperous way to interact with the international community is to stay neutral, but engage in trade with other nations.
But yes, our founding fathers wanted us to stay out of such military and political foreign affairs. Desperately.

Originally posted by ninthaxis

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I find it absolutely knee slapping funny that people in other countries, and some Americans, think we are somehow dependent upon them. It's beyond hilarious. I assure you, America could secure its border and stay to itself and still survive...

[edit on 26-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Isn't the policy of Isolationism what the founding fathers desired for this country to begin with? Something about NOT getting involved in everyone else's affairs and maintain our independence by also limiting the amount of immigrants allowed?

From my understanding, to an extent, yes.... Although, I think even the founding fathers had a dream of America being a global player eventually.

If put on a smaller scale of neighbour to neighbour, the answers and solutions are quite obvious.

I will take care of stuff in my house and not take responsibility for business and doings conducted in my neighbours house. I will talk with my neighbour, I might even do business with him...I might by some of his apples growing on his tree. I will not climb over his fence and claim the apple tree for myself. I will only defend myself if he directly climbs onto my property. Never will I attack him on the grounds that he MIGHT climb onto my property, but only if he really does so.

If teenagers drive by and kick their football into my window I will not blame my neighbour for terrorism and take that as a justification to vandalize his garden. I will instead ask various neighbours if they know the whereabouts of those teenagers so that I can confront them.

By keeping to myself and taking care of my own house and garden I can set a good example from which others may learn or not. Finding my way of tending my property the right way does not imply that I invalidate the gardens and properties of others.

On a small scale it all becomes very clear and one can discern right from wrong.

We should cut our selves off from the world for about 10-15 years. Don't let anyone in or out. Cut off all foreign relationships and become independent. We would have a slight economy collapse, but we should be able to rebuild it in time. Essentially, we kill off China and all our enemies. We'll have no more enemies because we wouldn't be calling them.

Originally posted by Gorman91
We should cut our selves off from the world for about 10-15 years. Don't let anyone in or out. Cut off all foreign relationships and become independent. We would have a slight economy collapse, but we should be able to rebuild it in time. Essentially, we kill off China and all our enemies. We'll have no more enemies because we wouldn't be calling them.

Unacceptable. Millions would starve. It's no joke.

Economic isolation is idiotic. Pure and simple.

The United States would never do that. They are making so much money off poor countires on the planet.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by Atlantix]

Originally posted by Atlantix
The United States would never do that. They are making so much money off poor countires on the planet.

And they're making money off of us. Mutually beneficial. Free trade is wonderful.

Originally posted by Johnmike
And they're making money off of us. Mutually beneficial. Free trade is wonderful.

Hardly. Multi-national Finance Capital takes far more value out of the land and labour of a Third World country then is put back in. And generally, the money that is made by the Thrid World country isnt distributed to the workers and the needy, its given to the top branches of compradors, those in collusion with the Multi-national corporations and are all too willing to give into whatever demands are made of them, so long as their class interests are met. Many countries borrowing from the IMF and World bank suffer extreme poverty and are crushed under interest rates, only to have their economies "restuctured" and austerity programs rolled in. The people and the forces for democratic change suffer once more under the hand of plutocracy and oligarchic monopoly.