U.S. Isolation: Good or Bad?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, covered in a recent article of the Centre Daily Times, 49% of Americans (the highest percentage in decades) now believe that the U.S. should "mind its own business."

Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing? Would the U.S. and the World be better off if we just keep to ourselves for a little while?

What? As in separating yourselves from the UN?

I don't want what happened in Fallout to become a reality. It's how it all starts.

But in all seriousness I think you need be restrained a little bit with all those nukes and everything, I may have deviated entirely from what you meant but your post isn't very clear.

Well, I guess they shouldn't keep to themselfs but don't think it's them who have to do something all the time, or am I making no sense?

There's a difference between "minding your own business" and "keeping to yourself".

I think (I don't know of course, not having seen the article you refer to), that when people say America should mind it's own business, they mean that America should see to its own problems in stead of telling the rest of the world what to do.

US isolation would be a bad thing, both for America itself and the rest of the world.

Isolation would be a bad thing, for both the US and the rest of the world.
But if you could maybe keep some restraints on your urge to wage war, that would do the world a lot of good.

Diplomacy can be efficient, sanctions too.
War, and violence should always be used as a last resort.

And please start making awesome cars again, there is nothing quite as awesome as late 69's/ early 70's muscle cars! *drewl*

fenrizz:
Isolation would be a bad thing, for both the US and the rest of the world.
But if you could maybe keep some restraints on your urge to wage war, that would do the world a lot of good.

Diplomacy can be efficient, sanctions too.
War, and violence should always be used as a last resort.

Agreed. Total isolation is not the answer, but showing a lot more self-restraint is a good start.

That whole Wilsonian "leave the world to it's own devices" idea only let Germany get too far in both World Wars. If only something had been done earlier in each war the Allies might not have fucked up the world so bad. Couldn't have Iraq been three separate countries for three separate peoples? Couldn't there have been a better solution for the Palestinians? These are things that we are paying for now and I can't help but wonder what would have happened if we had helped out earlier in World War I and not have crushed Germany to the point that an extremist like Hitler could trick the entire country into following his insanity.

On the other hand, we learned our lesson and then went too far in the other direction during the cold war, performing black ops in countries that are currently causing us problems (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan), and training some of the terrorists that we search for today.

Yes and no. If we close our self off from the rest of the world then there are certain economic implications. We have to give money to less fortunate countries to help them out. I think a situation like Finland would be nice. Mind our own business with our military while giving a lot of money to less fortunate countries. We need to cut back our military expenses and keep it to defense only I think.

Beowulf DW:
Would the U.S. and the World be better off if we just keep to ourselves for a little while?

Very very bad. Whether they like it or not the world operates on a global scale now, nobody can truly just 'mind their own business'. In everything from basic manufacturing to military equipment in the US is reliant on foreign input (seriously, in an M1 the armour is English and the gun is German). Simply dropping out of involvement with foreign countries is no longer an option, the US economy would instantly and most likely permanently grind to a halt if it tried.

Ultimately that kind of thinking process comes back to haunt you in usually violent ways, if you try and keep the outside world out eventually it will come banging on your door.

Well, we do act as the sort of "World Police", so in that essence, yea, we should stop sticking out noses into other countries business.

Define "mind its own business". That has a load of connotations and I'm not sure which one I should be debating.

Should they stop trying to "bring democracy to other countries"? Probably. You should probably hurry up and pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan while you're at it.

Should they close off the borders, restrict trade, eliminate all immigration and build a 500ft high wall around their country? Ah, no. Considering how much of the U.S. deficit other countries own, they actually can't isolate themselves. They rely on other countries and other countries rely on them.

Best thing you could do is stop spending 0.7-1.1 trillion dollars a year on defense and military costs. Seriously. That's just farkin' stupid.

I'd say it'd be flat-out bad, but that's wrong. It'd be impossible.

YES, jeez the U.S. is policing the world and being a bitch about it.

"Oh [insert random country below poverty line here] has alot of poverty in it, lets go help"

20 countrys later

"Oh lets go help"

U.S. meets resistance in said country.

"Fight em, we hate em, kill them all."

Now while that might not all be true it puts it all in perspective, pretty much if a country doesnt agree with the U.S. then its therefor bad.

The thing is, we're still in a finacial crisis and we need to solve that, plus there are thousands of other problems.

orangebandguy:
What? As in separating yourselves from the UN?

Minding your own business is not the same thing as ignoring the whole world. I see no reason for why the US can't be a member of the UN and still stay out of things that don't really concern them.

It made no sense for Bush to meddle in the Georgia-Russian war for example because it was something that was simply none of there business.

I'm all for isolationism. Let the rest of the world solve its own problems- they obviously don't want our help and we don't do a very good job anyway.

We shouldn't be waging any stupid or pointless wars or attempting to help other countries.
If that's what they mean, then yes, I think it's a good thing so many believe that.

orangebandguy:
What? As in separating yourselves from the UN?

I don't want what happened in Fallout to become a reality. It's how it all starts.

But in all seriousness I think you need be restrained a little bit with all those nukes and everything, I may have deviated entirely from what you meant but your post isn't very clear.

No, not seperating ourselves from the U.N.

We just wouldn't interfere in global politics, and issues (i.e. global warming, various conflicts). Basically, it's the idea that we need to stop sticking our collective noses into other countries' business.

No, in ways I think their should be more done, take Dafur, The Rwanda genocide etc. Now imagine how different those would go if the US, europe etc all sent in a force to stop it and not the timid UN peace keepers (who i feel for but are just not allowed to do much to help).

The problem is people don't really like doing the right thing, unless it helps them. People are always against getting involved in things unless it directly effects them, until after the event has occured... It's why i'm strangely both pro iraq and afghanistan, yes we may have gone in for the wrong reasons but at least we are actually attempting to make the world a little bit better for people (i'm referring to the right to vote, womens rights, democracys not dictorships etc etc etc).

Simply put, the world will be a horrible place for many until those of us who have the luxury of choice choose to use our combined might to stop it. America shouldn't stop, no other country could take its place.

Did you see what happened to the world last time they went isolationist?

No thank you. Perhaps stop starting pointless wars, but if something happens with your allies, we'd like to have some sort of support.

No, the U.S. should be concerned with global politics, but a lot of what has happened over the last decade hasn't been how we should act.

Amnestic:
Should they stop trying to "bring democracy to other countries"? Probably.

DEMOCRACY IS NOT NEGOTIABLE!
*Cough*
Ahem. Actually, I disagree totally with that statement, the whole bringing democracy to other countries thing as monolithically idiotic to me.

Stopping the whole World Police act would be nice, but we depend too much on other countries to extract ourselves to any significant degree at this time.

Demon ID:
America shouldn't stop, no other country could take its place.

China should be able to surpass us in less than ten years. Couldn't they take our place?

Beowulf DW:

orangebandguy:
What? As in separating yourselves from the UN?

I don't want what happened in Fallout to become a reality. It's how it all starts.

But in all seriousness I think you need be restrained a little bit with all those nukes and everything, I may have deviated entirely from what you meant but your post isn't very clear.

No, not seperating ourselves from the U.N.

We just wouldn't interfere in global politics, and issues (i.e. global warming, various conflicts). Basically, it's the idea that we need to stop sticking our collective noses into other countries' business.

You can't not interfere with global politics. It's actually impossible for the U.S. to retreat from the global politics scene. Global Warming is, as the name implies, global. But it shouldn't be a political issue anyway, it's a scientific one.

Demon ID:
No, in ways I think their should be more done, take Dafur, The Rwanda genocide etc. Now imagine how different those would go if the US, europe etc all sent in a force to stop it and not the timid UN peace keepers (who i feel for but are just not allowed to do much to help).

The problem is people don't really like doing the right thing, unless it helps them. People are always against getting involved in things unless it directly effects them, until after the event has occured... It's why i'm strangely both pro iraq and afghanistan, yes we may have gone in for the wrong reasons but at least we are actually attempting to make the world a little bit better for people (i'm referring to the right to vote, womens rights, democracys not dictorships etc etc etc).

Simply put, the world will be a horrible place for many until those of us who have the luxury of choice choose to use our combined might to stop it. America shouldn't stop, no other country could take its place.

Democracy is not objectively better than a dictatorship. I wish people would start realising that.

no we need to keep kicking ass and taking names

Remember all that crap about AIG being too big to fail? Would that have been a problem if America had not connected itself with other countries? I think isolation would be bad, because honestly, America is the centerpiece of the global economy.

No need for total isolation, just tone it down a bit.

Beowulf DW:

Demon ID:
America shouldn't stop, no other country could take its place.

China should be able to surpass us in less than ten years. Couldn't they take our place?

I would much rather America be "world police" than China... I would not trust them one bit. Fortunatly, the Chinese don't really want to be "world police", as of yet.

America just needs to be more careful with what wars it gets involved in, not necessarly revert into isolation. The recent Lisbon Treaty should mean that Europe can work and speak as one unit, making Europe a bigger world player. If we Europeans can get in the same league as the USA, then it should mean that the USA does not have to carry most of the work in foregin policy, and with Europes extra resources, it should make USA/European foregin policy more effective.

Amnestic:

Democracy is not objectively better than a dictatorship. I wish people would start realising that.

I personally disagree, sure democracy isn't perfect but i think it's the closest to a fair system we have. Off the top of my head i can't think of a dictatorship that i would like to live in, whilst democracys (and also technically republics). The main advantage of the democracy system is that me and you are actually allowed to have these opposing views :D

Beowulf DW:

Demon ID:
America shouldn't stop, no other country could take its place.

China should be able to surpass us in less than ten years. Couldn't they take our place?

Economically yes, but morally and ethically? What i mean to say is that when you look at the way china is, it likely isn't going to care about the situations we mentioned not with tibet and mass censorship to worry about :)

Edit: I apologise for the double post.

Travdelosmuertos:
That whole Wilsonian "leave the world to it's own devices" idea only let Germany get too far in both World Wars.

Just so you know, that's pretty much the exact opposite of actual "Wilsonian" philosophy.

Woodrow Wilson was all about "making the world safe for democracy". He very much believed in meddling in the affairs of other countries, even when he knew nothing about the situation on the ground (he was one of the main reasons the Austro-Hungarian Empire was divided up in such a retarded fashion, which helped lead to the problems we still have in the Balkans today). In many ways Bush's policies were directly descended from Wilsonian ones.

In many cases yes, in many cases no. That is all I really feel like saying.

I don't think it's really a choice between isolationism or non-isolationism, because there's no way that the U.S. will stay as a remote presence with no interests in the rest of the world. It's really a choice between engagement with the rest of the world and non-engagement, between negotiation and unilateralism.

Bad; Pax Americana

Demon ID:

Amnestic:

Democracy is not objectively better than a dictatorship. I wish people would start realising that.

I personally disagree, sure democracy isn't perfect but i think it's the closest to a fair system we have. Off the top of my head i can't think of a dictatorship that i would like to live in, whilst democracys (and also technically republics). The main advantage of the democracy system is that me and you are actually allowed to have these opposing views :D

You can have opposing views in a dictatorship, just as long as they don't threaten the power base of your Glorious and All Powerful Leader. The key word was "objectively" though. A democracy can run a country into the ground whereas a Dictatorship can bolster an economy and keep the citizens satisfied. Just because there haven't been any real benevolent dictators yet doesn't mean there can't be.

Beowulf DW:
Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing? Would the U.S. and the World be better off if we just keep to ourselves for a little while?

Yes. The last conflict/war that we should have been in was WWII, all the rest have been stupid and pointless. "Oh no! More countries might turn communist and we don't want that, we have to go shoot them!"

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked