President George Washington's Farewell Address (1796):


Yes, the policy of isolationism which lasted right up until after World War II. In our current state of world affairs, Americans are in some places loathed and shown major disfavor. France, Germany... two nations in which we rebuilt after WWII and protected from Soviet invasion turned there back on us in the war in Iraq. The people of South Korea protest American and S.Korean military action in Iraq even when the United States is all that protects them from a N.Korean invasion.

The policy of isolationism was successful for many years until we became a world superpower with the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, we were the world's "Knight in Shining Armor" protecting the free world from the evil Communists and we were respected. But with the fall of the Soviet Union and the US emerging as the only superpower we have been degraded by the world even been called "imperialists" by our "closest" allies.

BUT, what if the United States wasn't there for everyone. What if we decided that we will no longer care for the problems of the world and only care about ourselves. Stop sending foreign aid, withdraw all foreign troops, withdraw from the UN and NAFTA, and just worry about our own damn problems. What would the world think then? World Hunger, AIDS, Terrorism, Genocide, Dictators, for now on we will only deal with what affects us personally. The rest of the world can get by on its own. They do not like us? FINE!, they wont ever hear from us again. We can put all those troops on the border to help immigration and our War on Drugs, we can help our own economy by stop sending foreign aid, and we can fight the war on terror with a more secure America and less of a motive for radicals.

Questions for Debate:

1) After our operations in Iraq, would you support a policy of Isolationism?
2) If so, to what extent?
3) What are the benefits/problems with adopting this policy?
4) In your opinion, would the world be a better place?

Well, I'll get the ball rolling here...



First off I think that there have been more operations than just Iraq that would put the argument in favor of more isolationism. One was the Somalia aid-campaign and to a lesser extent Vietnam in general. So I believe that there are more examples than just Iraq, although that is one as well.

Second, if we do revert back to isolationism I think we should do it like we did pre-WW II with two exceptions. Those would be if a country requested our aid, like Haiti, or if there was another WWII situation. A situation where one country or people are engaged in combat and taking over countries with force that could endanger our wellbeing. I don't mean something like Iraq where Saddam might have been able to strike at us, but when he is physically taking over other countries and then becomes a threat to the US.

The main problems I see are that we could be cast as too good for helping other countries (How come we can't spread the wealth type thing). I think the biggest benefit would be that the US would no longer be seen as the world peace keeper that thinks it knows what's best for the world. We obviously don't know what's best, so why do we insist on trying so hard? We also wouldn't be seen as oppressive playing favorites with anyone, or being the bully that pushes other countries around. People don't like to be told what's best for them when you're not right very often. Also we wouldn't be seen as trying to conform the rest of the world to our ideals and standards (trying to make other countries democracies). Democracy works reasonably well for the US, but that doesn't mean that it will work well for other countries necessarily. We might be seen as having a more open mind, or most likely, less meddling.

In my opinion this would be a novel idea. To go back to isolationism, not completely, but to scale down our operations thus far. As far as I see it, we don't have everything figured out here at home, so why should we start trying to fix the rest of the world? If we concentrated on our homeland maybe we could fix some of the problems and make it better. Sometimes old ideas are good ones, and I think this one should be reconsidered and introduced as part of the foreign policy.

We don't have to be completely isolated and could still be part of the UN. All we have to do is take less action and stop trying to fix the world.

When I am in one of my more bitter moods I want complete isolationism. I am tired of hearing the rest of the world moan and groan about the evil imperialist empire America so I say fine, don't ask for help, don't ask for money, and don't groan when you can't support your socialist life on the backs of the American people. I also say I want financial repayment for the years of support we provided since WWII. How do you like them apples?

I know, though, that complete isolationism is not only impractical but could also be to our detriment. When GW (1) was President, communications and transportation were not what they are today. We are affected by the actions across the seas in ways that were not thinkable in 1796.

Therefore, I believe that we should lesson involvement in the world. They don't want us, we don't need to be there. We can be helpful if help is requested and these should only be one time requests. Not years of help. All financial support to any foreign nation should stop. Let charities do their jobs and be charitable. I would rather donate cash to a charity then have it taken (robbed) from earnings.

edit: I can't type and think at the same time.

Maby if we were to leave them alone; they would leave them alone!

No more help unless you ask it.
Only invasions of other contries should bother us.
Let them find for themselfs.

While isolationism has an appeal, it is entirely unrealistic. It's unrealisitic unless we wish to rid ourselves of capitalism as well. The interests of the economy and the interests of policy are too intertwined to allow for any attempt at separation. In today's world (at least First World), a nation gains power and leverage economically. In other words, no economic power = no political power. So, if the US were to become isolationist, the economic contraction would be disasterous.

Isolationism is a bizarre concept to me, something I can't begin to comprehend. That is most likely an outcome of my upbringing in a Europe that is looking to make more ties, and a Britain that is concerned with international affairs. I can see how it could work in the USA, though. Its sheer size (geographically and population) is easily big enough to distract people from external issues.

However, it's still something I believe is wrong for the USA. To retreat into itself because *shock horror* its people were exposed to the opinions of non-American people who said nasty things! Or protested against Americas actions?! What kind of a world is this, where you can't be involved in international relations without suffering criticism? To me this isn't isolationism, it is defeatism.

1) After our operations in Iraq, would you support a policy of Isolationism?

I'm not American, but certainly not. Isolationism will only serve to alienate the US in a century where the rest of the world are doing their best to work more closely together. Britain and Australia were also involved in Iraq, and many nations supported the action. You won't see them looking to hide from the people who contradicted them; there have been massive protests in the UK, in Italy and Spain, against our governments, and lets not forget in the USA as well people turned out to say no to the war. You can't just lock the door because people make use of their freedom of speech.

2) If so, to what extent?

To no extent, it's time for America to fix any broken and uneasy ties and just accept that people have the right to disagree.

3) What are the benefits/problems with adopting this policy?

I'm hard pushed to see any significant benefits in this approach, especially in the 21st century. The problems that will arise will outweigh any benefits in my view; having unsteady relations with other countries is better than having no relations at all. An isolationist US can't expect to come back and hold any power or authority in organizations such as the UN, not after pushing itself forward as the major force for good in the world. Trade is also an issue as has been pointed out.

4) In your opinion, would the world be a better place?

No. On the one hand, you can say that the US has been involved in...wow how many was it? Em, well a LOT of military interventions since the second world war, and not all of them were for good. At the same time, the ideals that most Americans have are in line with the rest of the free world. Without the US there to react to problems and conflicts, the other free nations would have a struggle to stay on top of things. You might think this is a selfish attitude, and perhaps it is. But, the USA is the hyperpower, its power and abilities are essential to stability in unsure times. People will protest against it, of course they will: that, afterall, is one of the things that the USA is fighting for. However, people are supporting it also.

I think it goes well beyond the people of the US not being able to tolerate criticism. The US has out of necessity become the worlds punching bag. No one is on our side and I place alot of that on the shoulders of Bush but the limites support of the nations of Australia, Britain and select others isnt a sign of continued diplomacy it is the beginning of the end. No one on earth except israel and US had a majority of people who supported the US in Iraq and now those people (even in those nations where the governments dragged their people into war against their peoples will) are voting out their pro-American governments. Blair, Howard, Berlesconi are all probably done. Anzar is out. In S. Korea the younger generation hates us and blames us for the seperation of families in the N and South.

The new generations could care less about what the US has done in the past. The US is now a global punching bag and the blame for all the worlds problems.

The only reason I see that the US cannot internalize is our market. I would love for the EU or any other nation besides Britain or the US take up their share of world peacekeeping obligations.

I wish the US would pull out every single last soldier from Korea, Germany, Italy, Britain, Japan. If they get invaded they get invaded. Let them fend for themselves. The world doesnt need (at least think it needs) the US anymore. Let them defend themselves (korea) let them take care of their own regional conflicts (kosovo). The biggest thing that confuses me is how the US is seen as the bad guy in Africa. We didnt colonize africa. Africa wasnt the destination of American imperialism. It was Europe who ruined Africa and S. America. It was Europe who started Muslim/Western hostilities in the middle east. It is Europe who continually sits on the sidelines criticizing and resisting every step of a problem their continent in all probability created.

This doesnt boil down to im mad because I didnt get a pat on the back or you dont like us enough. This isnt some renegade protestors. The people who side against America outnumber those that side with America and those who still side with America are no longer willing to fight for that support. You cannot appease everyone. The US will simply be hated and despised because it is powerful and rich. People do not like the influence the US wields. So yes lets distance ourselves. Lets let nations fight for themselves. Lets pull out of basically obsolete unions like the UN and Nato. No one has the will to fight anymore and the US cannot fight everyone alone so as far as protection goes the rest of the world should be on their own. As far as aid goes...it doesnt not to nations we didnt screw up. We only remain global as far as economy goes. Everyone gets what they want. We are out of everyones business and we have secure borders.

For me, the core of this debate is not how much America has done for the world, but how much America needs the world.

On the first point, let's take off the rose-coloured spectacles and think why America did what it did. America didn't fight in WW2 purely because it wanted future compliance to American policy. It didn't protect Europe in the Cold War because it was expecting endless future gratitude and automatic agreement. It did these things because:

1) It was in America's best self-interest to do so at the time
2) It was the right thing to do

America has fought for freedom many times. The measure of America's success in NOT how much the beneficiaries of those efforts kow-tow to America, how much they agree with everything America ever does or wants. No, the measure of how free someone is must surely be how free they are to disagree. America should genueinely start to worry if nobody ever feels able to disagree with her.

Quite apart form anything else, AMERICA HAS NEVER FOUGHT FOR FREEDOM AND WON WITHOUT ALLIES. What is so hard to understand about that?

On the second point - if you want to withdraw form the world - go ahead. Take back all the jobs you've exported to China and India, if you can. Don't worry, I'm sure the hyperinflation that will be released when you find you just cannot do it as cheaply as them won't completely ruin your economy for more than a couple of hundred years.

Take back all your troops and materiel and your diplomats form the Middle East. After all, you're self-sufficient in oil, and your nation is at the forefront of efforts to become less dependent on it. Oops! I must be thinking of somewhere else.

American isolationism might work if you could somehow cut the USA away from the planet and float it off into space. Short of that, though, you're part of this world whether you like it or not, and no, the people you're doing all these favours for won't be fawningly grateful for every dollar spent, especially if they think that you're putting conditions on your charity, or if your policies in other areas are helping to create the problems that they face. (For example - US and EU food subsidies for overproduction put Thrid World farmers out of business, which makes it harder for them to feed themselves, and increases the likelihood that they will need future food aid from the US and EU. Why WOULDN'T they want to point this out?)

The US has been criticized for many decades and it is not the criticism that makes me more apt to want to recoil it is the hatred that is now more prevalently expressed. Criticism is one thing but outright hatred is another, harder, pill to swallow. When I get in my bitter moods it is because of the hatred not the criticism. The countries that stood up and said what they thought still have my respect for it. It didn’t change the outcome but it certainly fostered discussion.

I, though, don’t think that semi-isolationism would be a bad thing. Nothing is for free, so when our country gives aid packages to other countries it is not without a political price tag. I would prefer to see these aid packages disappear. I think the price is great and the outcome little. I would rather donate money to charities that can provide real aid to the starving nations. The US is an enabler, through aid, to these poor countries. The troops, too, they are not wanted or needed. Not only does it cost me money but it, too, bolsters another community that doesn't want them in the first place.

And yes we can’t do it alone, I would not advocate complete isolationism. We need the rest of the world and the rest of the world needs us.

Julien you simply didnt understand my content or you were not talking to me.

Either way I will reply as if you were talking to me. I said the US should internalize in every sense except the market. That means remove all our troops from every nation and let the rest of the nations in the world fend for themselves and their regions as the UN and NATO are becoming obsolete.

It isnt about disagreement. Disagreement is fine but the nations of the world are not simply disagreeing they are moving away from us. They are voting out their governments that happen to agree with us. It isnt about disareement its about cutting out someones legs. In short the world is saying that the world would be better off with someone besides the US calling the shots and leading the way. It isnt the US job to simply be the muscle behind an operation if we are taking the risks if we are doing the majority of the work we should logically have the most control and the world doesnt want that. So we should internalize on every front except economically. We should stay out of foreign affairs that we are not the fault of. We should allow genocides and war and tyrants as long as they do not threaten us. This is just about the stance of every other nation on earth and it should be the US's. If it comforts the world to see Saddams, Milosevics, Pol Pots more then to see a nation wield such a powerful army and so much influence then so be it. If they do not want our troops in their nation pull them out just like in Saudi. The US cannot be the worlds police force. We should do what the EU does. Simply keep care of economic matters and do nothing militarily.

If the US economy falls so would everyone elses. This is why we have to stay external in the market but we should force nations to defend themselves on their own and if they are not strong enough to stand on their own (Taiwan) they deserve to be attacked because American lives is what should matter to an American and because not enough nations are willing to be militaristic enough.

As for conditions on charity? Every single nation on earth has these conditions. It isnt the US's job to bankrupt itself helping everyone and expecting nothing in return. Civilization has not and will never work like that. The US is simply the punching bag for it because we are the wealthiest.

Allies the ones you say we have never won without (which could be said we never won because of barring France in the American revolution) are no longer existent. When France Germany, Russia basically everyone agrees that Saddam has WMD's and Saddam is the most known dictator on earth and we cannot forge an alliance to oust him? When people do not see or remember why we have troops in their nation (korea) they should leave.

The US has taken up too big of a role a role no one feels comfortable with us having so we should step aside.

Kalabus, why do you think we leave these troops there? So they can enjoy the local culture? No, we leave them there to prevent outbreaks from occurring. Initiate a massive pull back of American troops around the world, and you will likely be greeted shortly thereafter with an outbreak of hostilities--many of them requiring troop redeployment. This wouldn't solve anything, and would make many situations worse.

Which isn't to say our troop deployments can't be evaluated for need, with some restrucuturing, perhaps even major. But not an immediate pull-out--that would just create a power vacuum, which would often be filled by those we wouldn't want filling it.

As to Washington's quote:


Times are significantly different now. International relations are essentially intertwined--what happens in one nation does tend to influence actions elsewhere. Therefore, the ties we create aren't really artificial any more--they're integral to our well being. Remember--in Washington's day it took weeks just to hear news from Europe--now its instantaneous. Economies then were fairly isolated and autonomous--not so any more. Globalization essentially renders these comments obsolete.

I understand there would be an outbreak in hostilities. I fully expect it to happen but like I said it isnt our problem. We would not have redeployment. Let the world fend for itself. Korea and I would say most nations do not want our troops in their nations. They do not understand or see a need for US troops in fact they think US troops are the reason for their hardships (Korean family seperation). Of course not an immediate pull-out but basically start telling nations that we are moving out you have 18 months to build up your own defenses and military. I do not think military world stability should be spearheaded by the US considering that basically everyone Canada, Britain, France, Australia thinks we are doing a shoddy job at it. Nations like Liberia and nations geographically lovcated by the Americas that is a different story but the US shouldnt get involved in any more Kosovos or Rwandas. Let the people and their surrounding nations fend for themselves. If no one else wants to lift a finger well so be it. Im sorry if it sounds callous but the US burdens itself to much for nations that do not want or can barely tolerate our presence.

I am all for isolationism, the level of isolation I am interested in achieving is more or less separation of Market and State. To achieve this I believe the first step is to have the EU host the UN. The Global perception that the UN activities being defacto US imperialism may be lessened with such a change. I would also prefer a greater level of one on one diplomacy, any aide supplied from us to be a direct result of the request of the receiving nation. To remove the middle man "The UN" would allow the American Tax Payer a greater say in our Government's activities overseas. The parallels of where we are and why we are there will become clearer.

The catalyst for me was the Gulf War and Somalia. Since both actions were viewed as American interventions and not UN interventions the subsequent repercussions were unacceptable. In the case of the Gulf War, I believe our sovereignty as a nation was lost in the UN intervention. Many tax dollars as well as world opinion suffered. We were required to contain Saddam, place countless human resources in the region and were stale mated when we moved to finish the job. In Somalia we were ripped apart and our people murdered, why because it was a humanitarian action. Now I would have probably been somewhat OK with what happened, if only the world had noticed. At that time it became clear to me, the general assumption that the Americans should just keep on giving. I personally do not give the lives of our people that easily nor do I write blank checks.

I read this letter several times and I loved it.

If Patton was the President

I think it is high time the US started to consider the US first, period.

Why do we continue to give Aid to Turkey? We have given aid to Turkey for years, Turkey turned it's back on us with the Iraq war and even tried to extort more aid from us.

My opinion, cut the aid to Turkey off completely. We were helping you, but we were doing it to ensure you would work with us when we needed you. You didn't. We have many other opportunities for the money that once aided you. And we cutting you off as to explore those options.

How would the world react. They would call us selfish, mean-spirited, etc. Basically the same why they talk about us now. Privately however, those receiving aid from the US would be put on notice. Aid is not free, your future support will be required.

Foreign aid should benefit the US, if it doesn't then why take the money from domestic possibilities that would certianly aid us?

America would literally die of oil starvation within weeks. The economy would collapse and the political fall out would make the depression look like a barrell of laughs on a sunny summers afternoon. Texas would probably try and leave the union and the world might be witness to the first nuclear civil war...


1) After our operations in Iraq, would you support a policy of Isolationism?

Why not? America often refuses to accept the responsibility its actions cause. Why should Iraq be any different?


2) If so, to what extent?

and

3) What are the benefits/problems with adopting this policy?

The benefit for America is it will finally realise its ultimate wet dream of having power with out responsibility. The problem is this will only last a few days.

The benefit for the rest of the planet is that it will have the chance to grow. The problem with this is it will require a lot of death and destruction.


4) In your opinion, would the world be a better place?

There is no such thing.

Great link Overland! An addendum to my post is since we are already viewed as "Americans are still seen as brash, loud, insensitive bullies [especially in an international sense]" why not be all that they claim us to be. Patton for Pres seems, a bit "Bent Nose" you owe me a fava diplomacy, hey lets get down to basics, nothing is for free.

edited as moif was posting while I was posting


HUH? How is this power without responsibility? The rest of the planet will have a chance to grow? Please elaborate.

No.


The problem with adopting the policy of Isolationism is that while we think keeping our noses out of other peoples' bsuiness will keep us safe from harm, it is really making things worse makes the idea that we'd be left alone a pathetic idea. When we tried to stay out of WWII, it obviously didn't work. Today, if we were to stay out of the world's business, we'd be letting every terrorist and tyrants have free run of the world because they'd know we'd do nothing to stop them and sooner or later we'd be drug back into the fight. So we might as well stay in around the world.


No. My reasons are above.

We must be careful not to outline the parameters of this debate as "us" and "them".

It is wrong because the debate is not a binary one merely between us and them. It is a symptom of ignorance to call everything outside the US as "them", since "them" presumes that the rest of the world are a monolith. The world does not have one opinion of America, it has several, and they vary greatly.

Most importantly, many posts here have ignored continents like Africa, which are criminally underepresented in global politics and are in need of desperate help - we cannot just say, "well people always complain about us so lets do nothing". If a man were there, dying on the street, and I knew everyone would look down on me and crticise me for helping him, I would still help him. Sure different morals and opinions exist, but there are - most would contend - some universals, which we, the west, have a humanitarian duty to uphold. To say that we are to let millions die, which is what isolationism could equate to, for the sake of not becoming possbily unpopular with certain groups, is ludicrous.

Moreover, isolationism is perhaps not even possible in today's globalised world. Global problems require global solutions. Isolationism is built upon invented nationalistic tendencies which grow, in reality, not from the fear of criticism as some here have suggested, but from what - to put it bluntly, can be termed as blind, selfish nationalism which is ignorant, xenophobic and in opposition to the unification and co-operation between the worlds states that is emerging in the latter part of the 20th century and early 21st. It is all well and good to claim that one might be a realist and such optimism is niave, but such a Machiavellian attidude is defeatest - it merely amounts to preserving the status quo; that is, western dominance and lifestyle at the expense of most of the worlds population.

With such a gulf, and gross inequality and injustice, isolationaism is - for all intends and purposes - a crime. A crime of apathy that even the heralded Martin Luther King warned against forty years ago. He criticsed and wanted to change America not because he hated them, but because he was a patriot, who loved his country. Americans must learn to accept criticism, absorb it, respect it and do somehting about it. Critiicsm is not a irrational phenomnea; it has concrete reasons for its existence, and these can be adressed.

Why is it Amerians take criticism so personally, and not from the perspective of universal values and common fraternity with all of mankind? If we are to improve the world, the last thing we want to do is erect barriers, physcial and otherwise, to common and global devlopment. In other words, criticism should not be conceived as a scathing attack on America, but as a suggestion on how to improve the world for all that is not as euro and west-centric.

If Americans disregard such nationalism and welcome plurality, isolationism becomes and obvious non sequitur, or as John Stuart Mill put it, a "dead dogma".

Isolationism is therefore a contingent phenomena reliant on historical, social and geographic circumstance. History will no dobut out grow it, but until that day, it is our responsibility to shy away from it and to embarce more positive, less divisive attitudes that can both save lives and make the world a richer place.

1) After our operations in Iraq, would you support a policy of Isolationism?

Yes not for any reason other than economic, we have been for the last 40 years been selling out our industries particurally the salt of the earth professions like Steel, Wood, all manufacturing jobs.

2) If so, to what extent?

I would put tariffs up back out of NAFTA and GATT, and give serious consideration to reducing our support for the united nations. I would also incur severe penalties for companies who work overseas to avoid taxes but give incentives for them to stay in the USA.

3) What are the benefits/problems with adopting this policy?

Problems are CEO's would have to take a paycut, so more than likely they would balk, as would a lot of day traders.


Benefits are a job market not based in service industries. Better national security It is never a good thing to import any vital materials. The unions will become more powerful, so that is always better for your average warking Joe. Better food quality, Mexican/other imported fruits and vegetables often have pathogens on them from poor sanitary conditions. Add to that I have seen onions in Mexico get watered with raw sewage so I will pass.



4) In your opinion, would the world be a better place?

I don't particurally care about the world I put the USA over the rest of the world. In my opinion it would make America a better place.

The world needs a healthy dose of American Isolationism--10-25 years.

And we to heed Gorge Washington's advise--Don't get into entangling alliances (I.E. UN)

We need to put tariffs on importing so that we can keep jobs here.

We need to take the troops in Iraq and station them on the southern border, and have them patrol it.

You're all over the map here. Better quality of food? You do realize that not all food can be economically harvested in all areas right? There are a lot of products which cannot be grown in the United States.

Your understanding of economics is questionable as far as I can tell. Just because people are producing manufactured goods instead of doing service work does not mean that the manufacturing industry will run smoothly. While many jobs have been lost overseas in the last fifty years, even more have been lost to technology and advancements in efficiency. What would you do, force companies to hire workers that they don't need?

Economics aren't nearly as simple as:
tarriff=more local jobs=better economic conditions

There is actually a reason why countries pursue FTAs (free trade agreements.) Because they do benefit the economy. Manufacturing jobs are not the panacea of the working person either. One of the chief causes of the Great Depression was massive overproduction of manufactured goods. Rising inventories deflated prices, triggered deflation, and led to a massive market correction.



Sounds about right for the next depression.



On the surface this may seem like a sensible approach; but imagine if EVERY country followed this philosophy. Imagine the global poverty, famine and death. If the leading cause of violence in the 3rd world is desperation and scarcity, then a policy like this adopted globally would be dooming hundreds of millions of people to poverty and death.

Now, one thing I'd like to ask all the people here that support isolationism (aside from the question, have you ever heard of the word globalization) is whether they not they feel that Americans are a part of the rest of the world? The reason I would ask this is that only a fool would think that such a policy could lead to anything other than trouble for the ENTIRE PLANET, including the United States.

Now, as for foreign aid... can anyone here give me some statistics on how much the U.S. government spends on foreign aid? It's not like the Feds are sinking hundreds of billions of dollars into some sandpit in the middle of Africa; the government modestly gives money to countries that need it.

Lets look at some numbers to show how shortsighted Americans are in their conception of foreign aid:

So, despite complaints that we Americans waste too much money on dirty, lazy foreingers (which is clearly what many are thinking) we would rather waste our money on $399 billion (2001) in Military expenditure (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2067.html).

To put it quite simply, Americans seem blind to the amount of money wasted on the military. and wrongly accuse other sectors of being the guilty part:



Moreover, the size of American aid is lackluster compared to the Europeans:



Not only this, but AID has decreased substantially over the years (which of course, i concede is related to the demise of the cold war, but the figures are worth noting):


Following these numbers, I would therefore suggest to proponents of Isolationaism who suggest that a interventionist and internationally active America wastes money, that there are other areas that do so to a much greater degree.

America likes to portray itself as a bastion of freedom - yet if freedom is the highest and most important value, surely Americans should be willing to share it with other, less privelidged people of the world too. Denying this right means they only care about freedom for themselves, and such an attitude is utterely disgusting to say the least.

Better quality of food? You do realize that not all food can be economically harvested in all areas right? There are a lot of products which cannot be grown in the United States.

They most certainly can and have been grown. Even tropical Fruits like mangoes and papaya are readily grown in the US. The problem lies in the fact that to grow these in the US drives the prices up IE a minimum wage plus expenses for inspections drive the price up. As we will not lower wages, nor will we cut inspection standards we always loose. Economically harvesting food nowadays gets you niceties like hepatitis carrying onions and carrots from the more "economical" farmers.


Your understanding of economics is questionable as far as I can tell. Just because people are producing manufactured goods instead of doing service work does not mean that the manufacturing industry will run smoothly. While many jobs have been lost overseas in the last fifty years, even more have been lost to technology and advancements in efficiency. What would you do, force companies to hire workers that they don't need?


The loss of jobs overseas is my primary concern, for the simple reason, you cannot compete with someone willing to work for 20 cents a day. Technology plays a part in job loss but moving production to a 19th century factory in Bangladesh has nothing to do with technology. It has everything to do with cutting corners and increasing EO's salaries.

Economics aren't nearly as simple as:
tarriff=more local jobs=better economic conditions


I agree, tariffs are the one big way to level the playing field. Drive the prices of a imported good up the market will take care of it.

There is actually a reason why countries pursue FTAs (free trade agreements.) Because they do benefit the economy. Manufacturing jobs are not the panacea of the working person either. One of the chief causes of the Great Depression was massive overproduction of manufactured goods. Rising inventories deflated prices, triggered deflation, and led to a massive market correction.

True enough, but you can also argue that those manufacturing jobs have been replaced with 2 jobs. Most well to do and middle class families now work 2 jobs to get a similar standard of living as they did 30 years ago. When the largest employers are discount retail outlets and temp agencies you may want to take pause and look at the 10 year picture.

You're right, you can't. Now, what do you think will happen to the price of consumer goods when jobs that used to cost 20 cents a day start going to people who get $6.00 a day, who work shorter hours and get weekends off? The price of consumer goods will go up.



Hey, tell you what. Go out and find a document that shows that the U.S. economy hasn't lost jobs to technology and efficiency gains in the last 50 years. If you can find one I'll be very surprised.

While jobs certainly have migrated, the nature of production has changed dramatically in the past fifty years. Simply blaming foreign markets may be easy, but it is comparable to sticking your head in the sand.

Here's an interesting read:



Drezner, Daniel W. The Outsourcing Bogeyman, Foreign Affairs. (May/June 2004) 83.3, p. 22-35

This is pretty strong evidence. What implication would isolationism have considering this established trend? It would mean a drop in productivity, or a rise in unemployment as the economy is forced to retain workers that it no longer needs to carry or face the facts that exporting jobs has little impact on employment, and huge impact on FDI (foreign Direct Investment.)

I know this will sound harsh and heartless but.....so?

Why should we care what happens as a result of pulling our aid from countries that do not support us? Many countries believe we stick our noses where they do not belong, so let's take our noses and our wallets. home.

Why is it our job to worry about every poverty stricken country in the world? Why don't we just worry about our back yard?

America has been accused of being a dealer of financial aid, causing people / governments overseas to become addicted to the cash flow. Well the only real way to break an addiction is cold turkey. Time to take away the cash pipe.

America needs to worry about Americans. Let those other countries worry about themselves. Maybe, if we leave them alone and allow the countries to fall deep into poverty the people of those countries will finally rise up and throw out the corrupt governments that run them. This would give them a chance to really create something, to be a free nation that was created with their own hands. The pride and improved self-worth of doing it themselves will go a long way in the development of the better future.

A different example is Somalia. That country degraded into a region split by warlords. The primary source of power for the warlords was their control of the food, that they only gave to their followers. Most of which was food we gave that country in Aid. In a sense, our "help" caused the situation.

If we were to stop food aid completely, the warlords power bases would erode rapidly. How long before the public rose up to over throw them if they knew the warlords where the primary reason they were starving? Men will fight if it is the only way to feed their families.

Aid has consequences. And it should have strings. If you country is only surviving because of the aid provided by the US then they would be fools to bite the American hand that feeds them. However, in this day an age no one worries because every time we get bit, we just start giving with the other hand.

Enough is enough. If the foreign aid is not benefiting the US through improved trade relations, strategic access to that particular country or anything else you can think of, then the money is just being poured down the drain and it needs to stop.

It is not my responsiblity to save everyone human being on the planet. People have to take responsiblity for themselves and their situations and work to change them if they are to have any hope of becoming anything at all.

The whole GNP argument really is no concern of mine, as we are not socialists nor do I advocate income redistribution. What does concern me is the bottom line. Please note the blue Highlighted donated services, I wish I had a figure for that, I suspect it is huge and why I can't find it easily. What I see is a great deal of money put in and a big headache coming out. Now if we were to take this same budget and incorporate it into our direct aid budget... We would continue to help just regain our sovereignty in the process

Piper

I did some digging of my own, prompted by the figures you quoted. I looked at Bea.gov and the World Bank website

In 2001 the US economy was $10,100,800,000,000. The seemingly huge figures you quoted are a drop in the ocean in an economy of this size. At the same time, the UK economy was worth $1,381,600,000,000 - just over a tenth of that figure. Yet we managed to contribute about a third of the UN contributions that the USA makes (from your figures - 8.9% compared to 25%). Our economy has grown pretty consistently in the last decade or so, so it doesn't appear to have done us any harm, and if it does someone else some good, what's the problem?

Now I know this flies in the face of your comment that "The whole GNP argument really is no concern of mine, as we are not socialists nor do I advocate income redistribution. What does concern me is the bottom line.

The bottom line is that GNP is the bottom line. And if it doesn't concern you, since you don't advocate income redistribution, why are you so excercised that successive US governments clearly do support it, since they continue to pay UN contributions. After all it doesn't concern you.

But back on topic, is it really wise to be so isolationist? What if the massive earthquake that is statistically on the cards hits California the day after America completely cuts itself off from the world? Are you going to turn away any help offered by the UN because you disapprove of it's existence? Would overlandsailor turn away France's help because they didn't buy into a war that you believed in and they didn't?

American isolationism always appears odd from outside America. I don't know another nation outside of North Korea that ever talks about it, let alone seriously. Prams and rattles spring to mind.

Julian- Do you truly believe that any country would step up to the plate and lend us a hand if needed. Why should they? We are rich we can afford it. Where was the foreign help when downtown NYC was flattened? Sure we had the sympathy but where was the CASH? Oh yeah, we can afford it. That is why I and countless others that worked in Manhattan lost their jobs following Sept. 11th. Because we can afford it. Where is the financial foreign support when hurricanes topple the south? Where is the financial foreign support when CA was in dire straits due to the fires? That support isn't there, why because we are rich. I certainly don't feel reciprocal help when it should be there but we are suppose to be largest contributors to foreign aid without any strings. Sorry, nothing is for free, you want my money and you want it through the government well then you pay the political price tag that comes with it.

The international community is the reason I talk about isolationism. Because that is what they want. They want us out of their lives. Well I have no issue with that but I am taking my money with me. Charity should not have a political price tag, my money would be better spent aiding those that I choose with no strings attached.

Why is it that when American's talk about doing what they hear the international community wants (out of their lives) they seem to get in a tiff over loosing our money too? Why is it that our country has to bear the financial brunt but not have any perks to go along?

Regardless most people on here are not for complete isolationism but a reduced presence in world affairs, financial and militarily. Let the other nations of the world pick up some of the slack and leave me alone.

Hey, I resent this. Other countries from around the world DID raise money. My sister and I both donated blood, as did other people I know. Through the Red Cross countries across the globe raised millions of dollars for the relief efforts. Perhaps it is YOUR perception of International attitudes, not international perceptions of U.S. efforts, that is clouding your judgement in this case.

UJ- No offense intended and Thanks!

Julian implied that the UN would step up to the plate and I was reacting to that. Yes I was angry and perhaps should have waited till I responded but yes these are my perceptions of international attitudes. I don't see the UN coming to our aid when we have disasters in this country. Truth be it, I don't hold a lot of faith in the UN other then it is a bureaucratic political nightmare. My feelings of isolationism are directly because of my perception of what the international community wants. They can't have their cake and eat it too. They want us out well the money goes too. I believe, overall, Americans are a giving people, I think charities would spring up all over the place to help feed the poor countries. I also would not want the US to stop giving aid when there are disasters in other countries.

Julian
Posted on Jun 28 2004, 05:32 PM

No the bottom line is we give and we give generously, $8,477,725,454.00 as per my previous post not to mention the -The U.S. donates logistical support, weapons, NATO flights, intelligence,  ships and manpower to U.S. peacekeeping operations while virtually all  other countries are reimbursed for such goods and services. Here we are back to the GNP again. The way it was presented this time it would appear that we have joined the Church of the UN and are now expected to tithe. This whole train of thought seems a bit gauche, especially in light of the fact that it in no way addresses what I advocate. Though I may feel that the amount of monies donated over seas to many whom despise us could justifiably be lessened. That in actuality is not my intended target on this thread. I personally would like to take on the issue one step at a time. Step one for me is to pull out of the UN. I would much prefer that all whom wish to recieve aide make such a request of us personally. I would rather all aid packages to be processed through our Government. I wish to know who we give to and how they treat us. If the relationship turns sour well so be it, we have controll of our money and we have our options. A more intimate relationshp would strengthen the ties of reciprocity. I never said stop giving, only to revise the way that we give. I wish us to isolate ourselves from the UN. The UN could always request aid as well

I do not believe that more than a handful of "the international community" want America out of their lives. The vast majority of the world wants an internationally engaged America, but not solely on American terms.

More than anything, they want a engaged AND predictable America, not the twitchy, trigger-fingering one that they have now. An isolated America would be predictable, but not engaged. The current mood of America is engaged, but not predictable.

By predictable, I mean things like one that applies it's principles even all the time, rather than one that demands removal of tariffs outside the US, but applies them internally; or one that condemns dictatorship everywhere, rather than condemns it in one place and buddies up with it somewhere else.

Either that, or one that tones down the rheotric to reflect the way that pragmatism and self-interest directs everything that America does (or any other counry, to be truthful), rather than the constant hearkening to higher principles of "freedom" or "justice". Someone living in oppression under and unjust regime might wonder why America doesn't help them like it has helped some other people. They might also wonder why the people that oppress them unjustly are treated by America as friends.

America can go isolationist again, so be it, but don't go complaining when someone else leads world events and invades a continent, causing our internationally dependent economy to falter.

With all it has right now, America needs to practice its democratic policies on a national level and lead the world justly. People want America to be the catalyst in shaping the world's development, not a bully or a hermit. And as a leader, America should be consistent with its policies. As Julian put it, we are too unpredictable right now - we are seen as a hypocrite bully. Isolationism would be the other extreme, still the wrong way.

I think the US can retreat itself to a semi isolationist role and still be available if the world needs it. Instead of being in everyone's face all the time how about only when needed and asked for?

Yesterday I was in one of my more bitter moods, to quote myself:


What scares me is that those moods are coming more frequently. How many other American's are joining me in the frustration and how long will it take for the, perceived (?), lack of support the international community appears to be so vocal about finally does force us to retreat. There is only so much negativity one can stand. And yes with that retreat comes a financial retreat as well.

Retreating financially would come at a great cost to Americans. I hope you are willing to make that sacrifice. While there is a trade deficit, the capital flows across U.S. borders are tremendous, and restricting them would have disastrous effects on the U.S. economy.



Well then, perhaps you should explore this negativity, no? I read Foreign Policy, an American publication, and it garners no ill will from me. Do I disapprove of some American policy? You bet I do; when it impacts my own life, or the circumstances of my country's development. When the U.S. engages in illegal trade practices that cost tens of thousands of Canadian jobs, it makes me a bit angry. That is not to say however that "I hate Americans." This is the sort of response which you are categorizing as such.

If a hotdogging American pilot accidentally kills 26 people in Italy by clipping a mountain gondola, and he gets off relatively scott-free that is probably going to get people angry. But it's not like these same people are sending bombs in the mail or burning effigies of the founding fathers. Let me ask you this DreamPiper: If one particular state were to be more than vocal in their opposition to the President, would you advocate your state cutting all trade-ties with them? That is the same sort of thinking that you are excercising here. I've seen just as many images of American protestors rallying against American political figures as I have foreigners. The fact is that the right to protest, whether recognized or not, is a universal one, and the people abroad simply do the same thing that people in America do.

On the issue of "they don't want us, so we should leave" type thinking. Who's to say they don't wan't you? Have you read any public opinion polls saying that the majority of the world wants America to leave, or are you basing your opinions on the images you see on the news; the very same media you constantly decry for their sensationalist coverage? If you took these images with a grain of salt, the same level of skepticism that you do coverage of, lets say, Iraq, then you wouldn't feel that the rest of the world is ungrateful. Perhaps it is easier to believe that you are hated or mistrusted, I don't know; but there is a gap between American perceptions of the world at large, and the reality of those attitudes, which you have acknowledged.

That is not to say that there is resentment abroad however. In many cases that resentment is earned. If you left the house for work one day and careless ran over your next-door neighbours cat; you would expect that neighbour to be upset, no? Then how is it that scorn for Americans that may be earned, say for example in Honduras, is treated with such a scornful response?

In closing, let me just throw a few quotes out there.

I don’t think trade has to be restricted, in fact I would advocate freeER trade. Let the poor countries be allowed to trade unrestricted here. Let them be able to actually compete for business in the US. Of course the farmer’s would cringe at the idea of no more subsidies but they don’t have my support either.

We enable these countries to be poor because of our aid. We give them money, that could be better spent elsewhere, and double whammy them but making it so difficult for them to trade here.


No I wouldn’t. I have no issues with dissent and vocalization of dissent. For example, I’ve said this in another thread my view of the opposition of the Iraq war as good thing. Whether I agreed or not with their view didn’t matter but I would rather a country stand up and say what they believe and be honest. My bitter isolationism feelings come not from voicing your dissent it comes from the hatred. I don’t have a clear position on the war. I’ve said that before but I was happy to hear the opposing views and the dialogue it created. Of course, in the course of that dialogue, other countries motives for that dissent was brought to light, but regardless of their government’s stand (founded or unfounded) and reason for that stand I always believed that the opposing views of the “people” was that they were standing by their belief.



Our biggest enemy is the Arabs, right? They view us as being unfairly pro Israel. US Aid does provide aid to the Palestinians. Ok it is significantly less then Israel but that does not negate the fact that the Palestinians receive our money as well. What has this aid gotten us? I would advocate no aid to Palestine and no aid to Israel. There is an even handed answer.

American perception of world view is key and shouldn’t go unchecked. It is perception that drives public opinion. Just as international perceptions of the US should also stay in check. It makes me think about my own experiences in France. I am not really bothered by the French disdain for American’s. It’s always been that way. So I suppose I am more immune to their reactions of Americans. But I remember being struck by the notion that when I was in France (during the 80’s) I spoke German the whole time. Why, because I didn’t want them to know I was American. Now isn’t that a shame, I, an American, felt like she would be less discriminated against by speaking the language of a country that invaded them?

Do business with them.
Vacations,Sure!

Other than that,NADA!
Pull out every single peice of military whatever. Not one single bit of financial aid or loans or "gifts". Let them live their own lives and deal with their own failures.
I vote for moving the U.N across the pond. How about Canada, maybe they'll take 'em. Not another dime to them either.

We can buy our oil elsewhere so how about we completely cut off the Middle East.
See how long these terror organizations last when more people in places like Saudi see their economy take such a hit. Cut them off until Quaeda heads start rolling. The Russians definetly need the cash.
In fact this would be the perfect time to push hard for alternative fuel sources. A real Goin to the moon 1960 Kennedy kinda push. Just imagine the slogans.

"Only .06L of American blood to every barrel of Crude, Your Big3 working hard to keep our gas prices steady and cheap."
Offer massive tax breaks to companies that produce real solid "Oh My Gawd" kinda results.

Maybe I'm in a DPipEr bad day kinda mood, but I'm gettin real tired of the rest of the world's sniping.

I'm not in a bad mood; but to be frank, I too am tired of sniping. I think it is unfair to continually make remarks or comments about America, generalizing the population and just being downright rude. However, I am still dumbfounded that people seem to think it is one way. I do know a couple of French people who aren't happy about America and encountered plenty of Europeans who just loathe it, but I have witnessed as much hostility and irrational name calling from Americans aimed at the French! Ultimatejoe has brought up some quotes from this forum, which is very sad. For the most part, I've encountered anti French/anti European sentiment on forums and gaming platforms where politics are not an issue. A while back, an American gamer had to be banned because he continually harassed another player who was originally from France. Now it seems to be coming to the point that some Americans are expressing their disdain for the entire world? I find that unbelievable.

Do these people not think that I don't receive hostility for being British? I have seen the Union Jack burned by mobs across the world on a number of occasions, British interests have been attacked such as the HSBC bank in Istanbul, I personally have been called names online for my nationality. I have heard of people being abused for being Scottish! What have we ever done? Well, a number of English hooligans attacked a guy from my home town when he was down south last year, and the only reason for it seemed to be his nationality. Yet I remain internationalist, and despite the rise of UKIP in the recent EU election, so does Britain.

It's high time that making unfair comments about people based on nationality is ranked alongside racism, because it really isn't different. America is always going to suffer more on that front; its bigger, it has interests all over the world and, perhaps above all, it is stubborn. Just as stubborn as France, and anyone who thinks different really has to take a step back from the situation and look at it properly. Foreigners who show disdain for Americans/America exist, Americans who show disdain for the rest of the world exist. Hell, people show disdain for each other when America isn't even involved! Isolationism isn't the answer, in this context all it looks like is defeatism, as I have said before.

The bottom line here is that someone has to step forward and be mature about it. If you genuinely think that 'the French' all hate the USA, then deciding to hate them right back is exceptionally childish, unconstructive and just plain sad. Another generalization is that 'the World' don't want America. Of course it does, who said it didn't? The amount of people who hate the US for genuine reasons is very small, the number who hate America as a result of propaganda isn't a whole lot more. Add these to the amount of people who claim to hate America but haven't the braincells to rub together to figure out why, and you have a number far short of one that can ever be called 'the World'. All that is left is protestors and nations that have a difference of opinion. That is called life.

Ok now I am in a bad mood. Everyone should stop calling each other names and let that be an end to it!

I am having an isolationist-syndrome sort of day/week/series of months myself...it can't just be PMS, it has gone on too long. But, wait…there goes Robin Scotland being all sensible and spoiling my bad mood! Now, I feel better, damnit. Why do you have to be so agreeable?

There is a WHOLE lot of middle ground between the way things are today and the US completely isolating itself and ignoring the world. Let’s consider some options in the realm of practical reality.

Our military forces are spread out around the globe. For reasons of absolute self-preservation, I believe we have to begin unloading our military commitments as soon as realistically possible. We have the obligation to defend most of Eastern Europe, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, much of the Persian Gulf area, SEATO pact nations of South Asia, and every Latin American member of the Rio pact. We spent over 29 billion for overseas military contingency operations during the ten year period following the first Gulf war and 2001. All relatively peaceful years, and small potatoes compared to what Iraq will cost us. This concerns me, because all of the large empires (with the exception of us, due largely to our geographical isolation) lost their dominance by either overextending themselves militarily or direct warfare.

The cold war is over. The new war is different, and has to be fought (largely) unconventionally. We absolutely need our friends and allies as much, or perhaps more, than ever, but we invested a lot of ourselves militarily in the old-style war and we need to pull back and withdraw from these cold-war commitments and save our pennies.

True.

It is sometimes said that an economy with substantial unemployment, such as Canada during the 1990s, provides an exception to the case of freer trade. Suppose that tariffs or import quotas cut the imports of Japanese cars, Korean textiles, German kitchen equiptment, and Polish vodka. Surely, the argument maintains, this will create more employment in Canadian industries producing similar products. This may be true--but it will reduce employment in other industries.

The Japanese, Koreans, Germans and Poles can buy from Canada only if they earn Canadian dollars by selling things to Canada (or by borrowing dollars from Canada). The decline in their sales of cars, textiles, kitchen equiptment and vodka will decrease their their purchases of Canadian lumber, cars, software, banking services and holidays in Canada. Jobs will be lost in Canadian export industries and gained in industries that formerly faced competition from imports. The major long-term effect is that the same total of employment will merely be redistributed among industries. In the process, living standards will be reduced because employment expands in inefficient import-competing industries and contracts in effecient exporting industries.

By the way Ultimatejoe, do you know Aydain Shagmessy (Trent University)?

Some American's constantly complain that the rest of the world doesn't support or appreciate them and if they don't start getting some respect, well, they are going to withdraw from the world. These numbers seem to have grown somewhat since the Iraq war, because of widespread opposition to the fact and conduct of that war.

This much is true.

However, which of these will happen first:

• America gets so fed up with negativity and hostility that it voluntarily withdraws from world affairs
• The rest of the world gets so fed up of America's constant whining that they decide not to play with America any more

I also wonder who stands to lose the most from either scenario. Whatever happens, I suspect it will not be the French.

My tongue is not entirely unadjacent to my cheek here, but it isn't fully inside it either.

American's have a streak of isolationism in us. That is part of who we are, this much is true. No matter how much I would like to see us move more inwards I seriously doubt that happen.

You know, I personally don't like being a super power. There is a tremendous amount of responsibility heaved on our shoulders. Every action is subject to scrutiny while other nations are given a free(er) hand. And when American's do scrutinize the intentions of other nations we are wrong to do so. Why is it so hard to grasp that there are some Americans that don't want to be the world's police? That don't want our men and women to be stationed around the globe. That we can not abide by the idea that we must fund all the worlds humanitarian efforts without any benefits. Geeze, we are capitalist, no one is going to change that. We expect a return on our investment. We don't have to close our doors completely and we don't have to cut off all aid but what is so wrong with not being in everyone's faces? Perhaps the rest of the world will stop complaining about the evil bully imperialist America.

Like Spiderman's uncle says - with great power comes great responsibility.

You may not like all the negatives, but I bet that you consciously or unconsciously like the benefits of America's huge power that places all these uncomfortable responsibilities on her.

Benefits that come from things like the dollar being the exchange currency of choice, particularly in commodities; like the massive consumer choice at low prices obtained by successive US governments trade and aid policies (you can get aid and/or access to our markets on our terms, on condtion that we get access to your markets on ours).

Many of the things that Americans (and Europeans, and citizens of every other developed nation to some degree or other) take for granted in the way you (and we) live our lives depend on the way that you/we interact internationally. You cannot expect to be able to withdraw from the bits you don't like about international relations without also losing the things you do like.

This is why it would be a bad idea for Americans if America isolates itself from the world - you have as much, if not more, to lose as anybody else does. You just don't realise it.

Britain broke itself in half in WW2, and only survived as a leading economic and political power in the world because of American generosity in the later war years, and the immediate post-war period (This was on American terms, of course, but that's the way of the world and I don't begrudge you that). For a century or more before that, nothing Britain did was right - nobody said thanks for the good stuff and everyone was quick to find fault. That's what happens to the biggest fish in the pond, like it or not. The only way to fix it is to stop being the big fish, not to stop doing some of the things the other fish expect from you.

If America isolates itself, who will help you out when you need it at some indeterminate future point. Time goes on forever for all practical purposes, and the one thing we know about infinity is that improbable happenings become certainties if you wait long enough. America WILL someday face national ruin with no internal solution (which it has never really faced since independence, even during the Civil War).

Isn't it just enlightened self-interest to help others as much as you can stomach while you can, if only to store up goodwill that might come back your way someday? If some people take your help for granted form time to time, that's their problem, not yours, surely?

The prudent course, of course, is to help people to do things they themselves think are good ideas, not impose things they don't like on them, even if it is for their own good in the long run. THIS is where most current animosity to the US comes from - the Iraq war wasn't something many people thought they wanted, or it delviered something they wanted in a way they didn't want it.

I agree with Christopher, NOTHING, NADA, NOT A SINGLE BIT MORE than a purely economic relationship.

For me, it has nothing to do with the Iraq war, or the fact that we are underappreciated, or anything else. If the rest of the world worshipped Americans for every bit of help we gave them , I would still be for a policy of isolationism. I am anti welfare, but to me welfare for every single American would be better, than exporting our tax dollars out of our country to the benefit of people who aren't ever Americans. Not to mention all the lives that get wasted, lives of people who volunteered to defend their country. To sacrifice their lives for the benefit of another country is nothing less than an act of treason.

People are dying in other countries? Sorry, not our problem. Doesn't affect me one way or another. Would the world be a better place? I don't know and honestly could care less. American lives and American money would be saved, and that is what American government should be concerned with.

1) After our operations in Iraq, would you support a policy of Isolationism?

No. I believe we made serious mistakes in Iraq and we have not always acted in the best of ways in regards to that country, but isolationism? The last time we tried that as a world power capitalism nearly collapsed and the world was torn about by the emergence from democratic nations of Tojo, Hitler, and Mussolini. We may not be modelling peaceful behavior very well, but what kind of world would we be in today if Milosevic sp?) and Hussein were able to successfully carry out their policies of aggression? Let one or two buliebulliestheir way and others will follow.

2) If so, to what extent?
I am for moderation in our present foreign policy to more internationalism. We need to work more to unite our allies instead of placing pressure on them to fall in line with our un-compromised policies.

3) What are the benefits/problems with adopting this policy?

Problems. See above, focus on Hitler, MuusoMussolinio, Milosevic sp?) and Hussein. Additionally with lack of cooperation generally might come a retreat to economic isolation. Tariffs may save some jobs, but they are damaging on a macro economic scale to job growth and prosperity.

4) In your opinion, would the world be a better place?

As you may have inferred from the above sections. I do not believe the world would be a better place, but perhaps if we repeated the disasters of the 1920s (and we are doing a lot of that) then a new greatest generation would emerge.

1) After our operations in Iraq, would you support a policy of Isolationism?
The time of isolationism is gone. It cannot be a viable policy.

We must distinguish here between isolationism, which I would define as a political stance, and protectionism which would be an economic stance.

The only way that an economically isolated nation could survive (let alone prosper) is if it were self sufficient. The US could be made to be self-sufficient, but the costs would be too high to be palatable. The US produces much more food than it needs, it still has a small steel industry. Oil, while not plentiful, is available. The US has the resources to pull this off, but why would they? The government has no power to restrict private companies from importing oil, video games or whatever else. Economic isolation is not possible.

What about political isolation? Also impossible. It was possible in the past, where the vast distances of the oceans isolated North America from the rest of the world. In today's world, nearly anywhere in the world can be reached in under a day. Mass invasion forces can form in mere weeks, with a transit time of days. Missiles can reach the US mainland in minutes. The US turning into an ostrich will not change these facts.

Because we are so close to every other country, what happens there affects us. We have an interest that megalomaniacs do not start genocide campaigns. We have an interest in which states are becoming nuclear powers. We have an interest that trade is not disrupted.

On the flip side, we also have a responsibility. It is not only a responsibility that most US leaders have recognized, it is a responsibility that most foreign leaders expect us to live up to.

The world is dependant upon us, both economically and politically. It would be more of a shock to the economies of the Third World and even Europe for us to leave than vice versa. The US economy accounts for fully 1/3 of the world's economy. Our economy drives the world economy to an even greater degree:

Global: Do Imbalances Matter?


Politically, the US is a stabilizing force in the world. Our presence calms things, rather than the reverse. Even in Iraq, where Saddam's regime has been causing tensions for decades, we are a calming presence as compared to what was there before.

We cannot become isolationist. The US is too enmeshed with the world, both politically and economically, for that to be even a remote possibility.

As a free market economy, the use would find it extremely difficult to be isolationist. Isolationism works best for dictatorships - where enough food can be grown within the country. Myanmar is currently an isolationist military dictatorship and it is a terrible place to live.

3.) A problem would be that we would have to cede trading rights and have more trading problems as we decreased our presence overseas. Other nations who are isolationist don't have problems since they don't have economic holdings in far-flung places. It's a question of having less foreign problems being worth more than any financial gain that we garner from our holdings.

I'm tempted to answer "yes" to question #1, but I just can't convince myself that a version of the world that exists today is even rometly similar to the one that George Washington envisioned. Who here lives like it's 1789 in any aspect of their lives???

Well, I'm talking from a Brit's perspective here, but...

1. Isolationism is and should never be a viable alternative. In the past Britain, Japan, the USA and half a dozen other countries have toyed with the idea, but each has been forced out of it for one reason or another. It's a cliché, but the world is getting smaller. As the West, and especially the US developed they have become more dependent (despite what some would like to believe )on the rest of the world for their economic prosperity and political stability. Military dominance isn't the way to go, but neither it isolation. No need for extremes here...

2. In my humble opinion, the US should work more at their relationship with Western Europe. The current bureaucratic nightmare that is the EU will only become stronger, and cooperation, rather than belligerence and hostility, is what's best for everyone concerned. I'd like to support a pretty sizeable restriction of American policy to areas of direct importance, but that seems to be an increasingly unlikely (and impossible) path for the US to take, especially now that Bush was vested so much in being a “War President”.

3. Pros: A justifiably disaffected American public gets some breathing space. Cons: The American economy takes a hit. The world moans that America isn't doing enough.

4. No.

The people of the world depend on the US for help and we are too ever so happy to give them help. If we stop helping once, we would get scolded for ignoring others. And with today's hostile atmosphere, something could come up and become complex in a hurry, and we would be too slow to respond if we pulled every military asset back home from all over the world.