Isolationism again?

[Wutang]

Considering how much anti-American sentiments there is in the world especially on Iraq, I'm wondering whether or not the US should start pursuing a policy of isolationism again like it did prior to WWI and WWII etc.

Should the US pull out all everywhere in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Middle East?

Does the world really need the US anymore?

I'm starting to wonder whether this might be a viable policy now.

The US would leave NATO but still be part of the UN but our military would only defend American borders.

Can America become a neutral power like Switzerland or Sweden? I think Europe and Asia could definitely defend themselves now.

I do feel that America will certainly be targetted again by Islamic militants but those will become fewer and fewer in number.

What do you all think?

[ 02-18-2003, 04:14 AM: Message edited by: Wutang ]

[Donut]

I'm not sure how you would make any money out of that. The US won't become isolationist because it doesn't need to. It will continue it's policy of unilateralism.

[Ronn_Bman]

Isolationism was a bad idea when we employed it, and it's a bad idea now. We have to work toward removing the idea that the US completely relies on unilateralism, though.

Most nations have proved their willingness to act alone when the want and/or need arises. The problem is that, now, the US is seen as the only nation able to actually do it. The US isn't the only nation that can act alone, but it's the biggest target in that group, so it gets the most press.

[Sir Taliesin]

I disagree Ronn! We aren't the only nation ABLE to act alone. China could if she so chose! I beleive China could and should for that matter handle the Korean matter. After all isn't NK one of the so-called satilette states?

[Barry the Sprout]

Yeah, I strongly doubt you could make that idea work - if you cease to gaurantee certain conditions for capital within your country then you simply won't attract it any more. The US will go to a large amount of effort to protect its interests, which is why so many companies continue to stay there. If you simply let the rest of the world alone then frankly what would you do to make money - who would you sell stuff to? And also, where would your cheap labour come from? You want to relocate all the Third World sweatshops to America?

And, just to clarify as this has been said before and took me some time to put down then, I'm not anti american. In fact, I don't know anyone on here who is anti-American as such. I know a lot of people who oppose the US in their war on Iraq and their war on Afghanistan, but I know no people who oppose the Us because it is the US. I don't personally think it is possible to rationally oppose a country in every thing it does - you would have to oppose the abstract concept of that country, and most countries concepts are actually fairly non objcetionable, if they exist at all. This doesn't make a lot of sense, but I suppose what I mean is that sometimes people get paranoid that we oppose them just because they are American, thats not true. We oppose you on this issue because we think you're wrong. Its surely not that hard a concept to grasp...

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: I suppose what I mean is that sometimes people get paranoid that we oppose them just because they are American, thats not true. We oppose you on this issue because we think you're wrong. Its surely not that hard a concept to grasp...

It's not that hard to grasp. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I think we can take that example a bit further. Anyone may think their position is being opposed because of who they are. The French, the British, the Belgians, the US, the Germans, the Isrealis.... anyone.

[Timber Loftis]

After spending 60 years learning the ins-and-outs, importance, and abject inability to avoid international trade relations, there can be no isolationism. Only in the direst of circumstances could America rely on the resources within its borders to sustain it. And, the existence would be meager compared with what we have now.

Even during isolationism, we didn't stop importing and exporting. And, in the modern day this is complicated. Environmental Regs in the US, for instance, are some of the strictest in the world. That means canning tuna, refining petroleum, making glue, and spraying apples with the carcinogens that keep them fresh for up to 1 year on the shelf (true, no lie) all cost more here than in other countries.

If our companies can't go to other countries to open factories, they will be forced to compete with international companies that can undercut them by making the goods where it's cheaper - a slight market advantage that flips the economic balance and results in bankruptcy. Then, we might be able to grow apples but it would take tax dollars to keep companies afloat to do it.

And, if our gov't can't guarantee, to some degree, the safety of opening a plant in Nicauragua (Chiquita Bananas), Mexico (Ford Cars), or China (Nike shoes), then the *ability* to open those plants is useless - fear of nationalization (i.e. the gov't decides "we own your plant") and other factors make it impossible.

So, to protect our economic interests, it is a *must.*

This is one small variable. I can make similar arguments regarding health, safety, environmental protection, human rights, global economic stability, and all sorts of other issues which demand internation consideration. The fact I can go to some website.co.uk sitting at my CPU in Chicago is a clear indication that the head-in-the-sand days are long gone.

[Wutang]

I know there will always be a segment of population in the world are against the US just because it's the US...no matter what the issue is. These people simply hate us since we police the world.

But I don't think the US economy would suffer very much if we brought all our military home.

Nike, Microsoft, Coca Cola etc would do just fine. Their security overseas is really dependent on the host country. If it continues to bring in money and jobs to that country, no govt would want to kick them out.

American companies thrived in South America and Latin America before WWII.

Except for the crash of 1929, the US economy was fairly healthy.

Despite all the anti-Americanism, American products and dollars are still a coveted commodity.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Wutang: American products and dollars are still a coveted commodity.

True, but most of that coveted nature comes from our standing in the world community and the influence we have because of it. It isn't a "given" that it the will continue no matter what. Isolationism would, in time, destroy both our standing and our influence. The rest of the world needs the US, but we probably need them more.

[Thoran]

So we've got the big bullseye painted on our back, it's a prerequisite of the job I'm afraid. I don't think we should let that get us all riled up and talking isolationism. When you're on top of the hill everyone else can see and get a shot off at you, but there's advantages to being up there too.

The thing I find most interesting is that many of the countries who complain most bitterly about our unilateral behavior are just as likely to behave similarly when they can get away with it. For instance... in the Middle East there's bitter anger towards the US for supporting Israel, yet most of those same countries support the Palestinian fight for a homeland. If the US stopped supporting Israel does that mean that all the Arab countries in the region would stop supporting the Palestinians and let those two peoples work out their differences however they might? Not bloody likely.

And then there's Iraq... squawking about how the "Imperialist" Americans should not be interfering with Middle East affairs. Hmm... so if we're "Imperialists", what does that make a country who would arbitrarily decide to Annex another country. Seems that Saddam needs to dig out a dictionary and do some word searches.