Amercia as an Isolationist - what would result

[bishop]

Quote by: livemike Well attacking Isreal hasn't helped any of the arab countries so far.

keep in mind that israel has been bailed out of every conflict in one way or another.

[RickSp]

Quote by: purplehaze They collapsed because they were trying to keep up with the United States in an arms race. They spent so much on their military to keep pace with us that they were unable to provide services to their people. The notion that we had little to do with their collapse is way off in my opinion. If our military posed no threat to theirs they could have spent billions of dollars more wisely. Instead they built nukes, tanks, and planes. Many of which were never used for any real purpose, and have since been sold off to other countries. This is a prime example of how the threat of military action, and troops so close to the threat, is an effective diplomatic policy.

The funniest thing about the collapse of the Soviet Union was how completely taken by surprise the hard core conservatives were. They had kept making ridiculous claims about the Soviet miltary to justify overbuilding our military. All their claims collapsed with the collapse of the Soviets.

Once the Soviets system did collapse the Reaganites, of course, tried to take credit by claiming that our militiary madness was the cause of the Soviet collapse. I don't think there is any actual evidence of this claim, but it does give the cold warriors a warm and fuzy feeeling.

[Osborn F Enready]

I would like to remind some people of one thing.

A sleeping giant, is still a giant.

We were intended to be isolationist in foreign policy. We were intended to be a nation that discouraged, and despised entangling alliances.

We would be MORE effective as a bringer of peace, by walking softly and carrying a big stick, than by waving that stick ferociously at every fly that buzzes by us with little effect, and showing our tactics to every enemy that cares to take notice.

As of today, our government has adopted a role of International police force, which is failing.

When you have a "balance" of power, tipping the scale to far to one side cause everyone on the other side of that scale to scramble to even it out again. What we do with foreign policy currently is stirring up the pot, and attempting to skew the balance to our side through political, military and financial means. Because of this, we are being lashed back at, by all who feel threatened in the same ways.

China, India and Japan is skewing the balance economically, and industrially.
Iran, Pakistan, Korea, Venezuela are striking back economically and politcally.
Iraq, Afghanistan, and every terror organization world-wide is now striking back militarily.

The entire worlds balance of power has been upset, due to an over-reaction by a zealous president after "terrorists" hit one of our soft targets. This is after the world watched us dismantle the Soviet Union, one of the world greatest super-powers, and all current super-powers now register us as a threat because of our diplomatic/military proofs of corruption that are spilling out all over not only International media, but OUR OWN media.

We are about to witness at least a decade of American downfall, and the end of the American Century. We have set ourselves up for a political, economic crash unlike any other we have ever known, and now whether we want to face the music or not, it will be played at full volume as the corrupt military/political machine digs us further under the blankets of tyranny.

In answer to the original topic post:

America needs to become more isolationist in ALL ways, again focusing on independent industry that can support our nations needs in time of international crisis. We need to again focus on our needs in our society, and stop worrying about the plight of other nations peoples. We need to secure and dillegently defend our borders, and remove our double standards. We need to focus on our problems, and not lose sight of our goals. We need to again, be a nation of free market open economic policy, and isolationist stanced foreign policy until our being is TRULY and UNDENIABLY threatened....... a fact the Iraq war, and most wars since WWII can't live up to.

[SteveA]

Nice post, Osborn.

You can see the same destabilization as the federal government has taken a similarly intrusive stance in American governments as well. But what can people expect when generation upon generation of voters are being taught by the people running the show, and the federal government takes upon itself the role of controlling state voting systems.

[bishop]

a better way to answer the original question is to apply emanuel wallerstein's world systems theory. focusing on whether/not isolationism can benefit us is too narrow to provide any meaningful insight.

the theory's basic concepts are:

1. strong powers actively work to exploit/open new markets (ex. mercantalism, "free trade").
2. pre-existing regional zones of power increasingly become dominated and absorbed by larger powers (ex. the growth of the british empire, the growth of our empire in the middle east).
3. the strong powers' economies evolve and abandon established economic systems (ex. the british abandoned agriculture for industry, we abondoned industry for services). as these new economies evolve, they need new customers to satisfy the insatiable need for growth and larger profits. strong powers begin to encourage less powerful countries to follow their economic model - so that they can sell them their products/services. imposed change is frequently resisted.
4. wealth accrues to fewer and fewer people over time.
5. towards the end of the strong power's peak, it increasingly uses its military to preserve its power.


wallerstein's analysis focused primarily on former european powers belgium and britain.. this pattern mapped their rise and fall. it's intersting to see just how similar our country is with theirs - especially in terms of its progression.

against this backdrop, i would argue that the real problems begin where #2 and #3 intersect. opening new markets and increasing our sphere of influence need not be bad things though. the decisions we make can bring people together, such as our assistance to west europe in the face of stalin's constant encroachment. other decisions force us to deal with the blowback for decades - such as our assistance to osama bin laden.

our predecessors in belgium and britain increasingly sought to force their system upon others - exploiting them to satisfy their desires. the goal has always been to profit, even it that entails profitting at the expense of others. this behavior obviously results in #4, which then results in discord, poverty, instability, war, etc... when things gradually begin to unravel at the seams, the strong power increasingly employs its military to hold it all together.

as wealth becomes more concentrated, these interests increasingly become those of the elite, rather than the public at large. our national values have become decadent and replaced by those of the elite. that causes other powers to view us as untrustworthy and a threat to their own interests/autonomy. they begin to rebel and #5 creeps up into the fray.


basically, all i'm saying is that there is no "either/or" solution. in certain cases, isolationism hurts us, in others it helps. the crucial factor is what motivates the foreign policy and how does it manifest itself?

[zynner]

Not one person alive today has experienced the United States at peace for more than a few years at a time. Quite a statement, huh? What actually would happen if the US government switched to a non-interventionist foreign policy?

Let's see, we have something like 700 military bases in over half the countries around the world. To go from that to zero foreign military bases, we would have to have a change in government to a person or group of people who really believed in it -- and they'd have to get elected. With that as a background, I think we would see incredible benefits from it. Remember, it is the US government's responsibility to defend Americans, first and foremost. So, how would it affect Americans?

We would bring the National Guard and Reservists home, where they could help out in national disasters when necessary. We would bring active personnel, ships, planes, etc. home where they could train for any necessary defense of the USA.

Over time, the defense budget could be slashed, allowing for lowering of taxes, which would lead to more economic prosperity. We would no longer be a threat to the people of the Middle East. So, they are extremely unlikely to want to threaten us. So, we could get rid of invasive body searches, hasseling of foreign visitors, terrorist alert levels, and generally all-around goon-like tactics we are now seeing.

Because our government would not be threatening others, we would have better relations with other nations, as they realize we mean them no harm. All in all, there is no downside for us -- and plenty of upside. Oil prices would likely drop, since it is our intervention that creates a non-free market situation.

With a non-interventionist foreign policy, we would also be ending any aid to foreign dictators. The people of those countries would have a much better chance of changing their own systems without our support of their dictators -- and we would no longer be providing them with a reason to hate us because of it.

Israel has the largest nuclear arsenal in the Middle East. Nobody is going to invade them. Nobody. They can take care of themselves. There is no reason to assume China would do anything to Taiwan. They have left Hong Kong be free and the Chinese government is moving the country towards capitalism. There could be a fight there, but not too likely. Likewise, South Korea can defend itself.

The only real problems would be where there are already problems -- Middle East and Africa. But, that will be going on for many decades no matter what we do.

But... AMERICANS would be much, much better off for such a change in policy.

~ zynner

[Rainbow]

Quote by: purplehaze I am curious what you all think would be the result if America adopted a drastically more isolationist policy. Militarily only, not isolationist economic policy.

Is America strong enough to opt for defend-and attack policy and/or doctrine ?
I think that U.S. is fully capable of defending its territory, but (I am) not so certain to attack any other one regardless of a geographical position and taking a control over that state.

How are you going to separate military from economics and play a role in this world, that is a mystery to me :-))) since military is the critical part of any state.
Assuming that it is possible, U.S. faces 3 issues immediately :
- oil supplies ; Middle-East
- peace ; Europe
- electronics ; Far Asia
All theese elements are crucial for U.S. economy, and it needs to be supported and/or monitored (at least) by U.S. military.
By-passing these elements and moving ahead, we rule :-)))

[Livemike]

Quote by: Rainbow Is America strong enough to opt for defend-and attack policy and/or doctrine ? I think that U.S. is fully capable of defending its territory, but (I am) not so certain to attack any other one regardless of a geographical position and taking a control over that state. How are you going to separate military from economics and play a role in this world, that is a mystery to me :-))) since military is the critical part of any state. Assuming that it is possible, U.S. faces 3 issues immediately : - oil supplies ; Middle-East

These are more secure in the absence of US intervention. Every time the US
government has intervened in the region the arabs have sought to punish them
by denying them oil, either formally through OPEC or informally through blowing
up pipelines.

Quote by: Rainbow - peace ; Europe

Who exactly do you think is going to start a war?

Quote by: Rainbow - electronics ; Far Asia All theese elements are crucial for U.S. economy, and it needs to be supported and/or monitored (at least) by U.S. military. By-passing these elements and moving ahead, we rule :-)))

What the hell does that last one mean? Do you think that asians will deny you
pocket calculators? Since when did the US military do anything to make sure
americans got electronics?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Livemike These are more secure in the absence of US intervention. Every time the US government has intervened in the region the arabs have sought to punish them by denying them oil, either formally through OPEC or informally through blowing up pipelines. Who exactly do you think is going to start a war? What the hell does that last one mean? Do you think that asians will deny you pocket calculators? Since when did the US military do anything to make sure americans got electronics?

#1
U.S. deploys its military personnel to unstable regions (aside of other tasks), with vital (to U.S.) resources. You disagree with that policy, then address that subject to those with effective power in their hands.
#2
Europe is a stable continent, today.
I assume that you know history of Europe well, then you should know the answer.
#3
(That) the hell last one does mean :
- Taiwan

Example :
- calculators do not fill your computer case, but electronic chips mostly made in Taiwan.
That is the reason you pay not that much for your computer system, and/or upgrades, ect.
Otherwise, you spend much more for that enterprise, what would affect a growth and developement for PC computting along with communication services while the internet-based along with cellular phone ones are being recognized as the most common with day-by-day growing demands.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop 3. the strong powers' economies evolve and abandon established economic systems (ex. the british abandoned agriculture for industry, we abondoned industry for services). as these new economies evolve, they need new customers to satisfy the insatiable need for growth and larger profits. strong powers begin to encourage less powerful countries to follow their economic model - so that they can sell them their products/services. imposed change is frequently resisted.

I agree with these findings.
That is the reason U.S. needs to develope new technologies and offers not-so-hi-tech ones to others, since they may not afford it and/or it would weaken U.S. power.

[Vee]

world peace

sarcasm