Interventionists (I know I spelled it wrong) or Isolationist.

[Sythe]

In my government class my teacher asked a good question. "Should a country get involved in world affairs or should be isolationist (Stay out of world affairs as much as possible).

In my opinion a country should not get involved whenever possible. Instead of helping other nations with their problems, the country to should help itself so it can correct the problems within it's own borders. And would not get involved in war unless under direct attack or if their allies are invaded. And well..thats all I say for now.

What do you say?

[Faceman]

I say in a global economy other nations problems are our problems too.
It depends on the country of course.
It's the same question as: "If somebody else has a problem should I get involved" It depends.
In many cases it's self-evident (e.g. should I help somebody asking for directions, lend a hand to someone who has tripped and fallen,...) in some it depends on your own situation (e.g. don't try to stop an armed robbery when unarmed and weak yourself).
The only main difference between the behaviour of countries and the behaviour of people within countries is that there are no binding laws in international laws, it's just a set of contracts. So there is no equivalent for "calling the police" because there is no "world police".

IMHO complete isolationism in this day and age is a tad unrealistic, but you also can't jump in every time because you've got to respect countries' sovereignities and ponder whether they may figure out their problems rather quickly themselves.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Sythe: In my government class my teacher asked a good question. "Should a country get involved in world affairs or should be isolationist (Stay out of world affairs as much as possible). In my opinion a country should not get involved whenever possible. Instead of helping other nations with their problems, the country to should help itself so it can correct the problems within it's own borders. And would not get involved in war unless under direct attack or if their allies are invaded. And well..thats all I say for now. What do you say?

Where's the money in that?

[Khazadman Risen]

Isolationism is a dangerous thing Slythe. Could you imagine Europe today if the US had stayed out of the first world war? The continent would be dominated by Imperial Germany and the UK. There might not ever been a communist state in Russia, and there definitely would never have been a Nazi movement in Germany.

[Dreamer128]

Originally posted by Khazadman Risen: Isolationism is a dangerous thing Slythe. Could you imagine Europe today if the US had stayed out of the first world war? The continent would be dominated by Imperial Germany and the UK. There might not ever been a communist state in Russia, and there definitely would never have been a Nazi movement in Germany.

Didn't the US only play a minor part in the First World war?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWdeaths.htm

[Timber Loftis]

I think a nation should stand up and take efforts to help out. I think it should subject itself to the general whimsy of the consensus of all countries at any given point in time, and do exactly what the international community asks, but no more, exactly how the international community asks, and not differently. The nation should be a servant to all and should not have any self interest whatsoever. Oh, and it should be only one nation -- the U.S. The others should be allowed to kick back a toke hukkahs while watching it do the world's dirty work.

Oh, and I'm of course bullshitting big time.

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: quote: Originally posted by Khazadman Risen: Isolationism is a dangerous thing Slythe. Could you imagine Europe today if the US had stayed out of the first world war? The continent would be dominated by Imperial Germany and the UK. There might not ever been a communist state in Russia, and there definitely would never have been a Nazi movement in Germany.

Didn't the US only play a minor part in the First World war?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWdeaths.htm [/QUOTE]British Empire (Note I believe this includes all commonwealth countries involved not just the UK).

Also WWI Don't forget that Halifax explosion occured during this period :

At 9:05 on the 6th December 1917, a munition ship exploded in Halifax harbour, (Nova Scotia, Canada). This explosion was so vast that it killed over 2,000 people and completely flattened two square kilometres of northern Halifax. This was the greatest explosion of the Great war, and the largest man-made explosion until the dropping of the bomb at Hiroshima in 1945.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...t1/halifax.htm

The death toll may have been greater if not for the aid received from Boston. So the US did more than just fight in the war. Using death as the means too determine who contributed the most is not the best way. What about small countries with only a small population of only several million who manages to muster $100,000 or more troops. That is a hugh contribition even though they will not lose so many as say the UK, or Russia.



[ 05-11-2004, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Khazadman Risen]

The US was siding with the Allied Powers before it's entry into the war by shipping them food and materiel and denying the same to the Axis powers.