reply to post by seabag
I also have a problem with a non-interventionist US foreign policy when there are issues that need to be addressed (ie Iran acquiring nukes).
There is a huge difference between isolationist and non-interventionist. I have a problem with isolationist. We should be trading wares, and
educations, and tourism, etc. We shouldn't be trying to dictate their governments.
If we were really trying to do good things for the world, we are desperately needed in central Africa, but instead of going there, we go where the oil
I'm a fan of non-interventionalism, as long as we have open communication and open-trade, and a good network of information gathering techniques
(spies!). If they become a real threat, then it is fairly easy to do precision actions to eliminate those threats without full-scale war. The recent
software viruses are good examples of that, and so are assassinations and industrial accidents. If we just want to hinder a nuclear weapons program,
I think we could do that more effectively with active trade, active partnerships, active involvement and investment in their country, and a few
precise covert operations as need-be.