|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Isolationism
#6007684 - 08/29/06 10:08 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Do ya'll think it would be beneficial to the United States, considering current events and forecasts of the future, to once again embrace some form of isolationism?
I think that, as far as politics and policy are concerned, we should begin focusing inward as a country, and work on strenghtening ourselves and our infastructure. I think that, through the Cold War, we have become so focused on being the dominant world power that we have spread ourselves too thin, and continue to do so.
Perhaps we, as a country, should focus on producing again. I mean, with all of these troops out in the Middle East, we look like fucking Russia, forever struggling for control of warm water ports!
You know what, fuck the oil, let's bring our attention and focus back within our own borders, and let's find solutions for ourselves. We should be developing ourselves, educating ourselves, looking to innovate the future.
Also, I think that we would not necessarily be isolated in terms of trade, but that we should become more limited in our economic reliance on trade. Obviously, the transition should be effectively planned and somewhat gradual, in order to protect our economic well-being, but perhaps it would be important to implement this.
I look forward to any opinions or insight on this proposal. To be honest, I do not see much benefit from entangling ourselves in war in the Middle East.
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 6 months, 28 days
|
|
I think that we should embrace isolationism in all cases other than trade.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: Isolationism [Re: Redstorm]
#6007743 - 08/29/06 10:27 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
What are your thoughts on trade itself, though? Limited and reserved or open and free?
I think that, the less restricted trade is, the more likely we are to become involved in world affairs. That which affects those we trade with will inevitably affect us as well, as long as our economic well-being depends on that trade in a signfigant way.
I think that we should trade, but that our ability to sustain ourselves economically should not be dependant on trade.
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
The_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth


Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN
Last seen: 7 years, 12 days
|
Re: Isolationism [Re: Redstorm]
#6007773 - 08/29/06 10:32 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redstorm said: I think that we should embrace isolationism in all cases other than trade.
It Sure as hell worked for Switzerland through out the years and has kept their noses clean.
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. Thomas Jefferson
|
Hank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
|
|
Fuck the oil? Our economies are so Dependant on oil, that is not an option. Unless of course we focus on renewable energies and got them going very soon. My country, Canada, could become Isolationist, as we have enough oil to last us a long time. Thanks to NAFTA we are selling you most of our oil, and much of our electricity, it's complete bullshit.
I would love for my country to close the borders, stop selling our resources, and invest in our military.
-------------------- Capliberty: "I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
I would prefer isolationism to the current trend of imperialism. But I think some amount of internationalism should be exercised. I'm fine with helping countries that ask for our help. I just don't believe in coming into other countries uninvited and exerting our will over them.
--------------------
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
The_Red_Crayon said: Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. Thomas Jefferson
My point, as far as that goes, is that trade with other nations makes our economy dependant on that trade, which thereby makes us allied with those nations, if we are interested in a healthy economy.
For example, if we we just, one day, said "No more trade with China!", we would suffer severely because of it. There would be a recession and people would lose their jobs.
I think it might be important for us to focus inward and stabilize ourselves, by ourselves. I'm not sure to what extent we would even be capable of doing this, at this point.
It certainly would require a government that could create plans, manage stuff, etc. etc. etc. I don't know, we could outline some goals, a country vision, perhaps that would get us focused.
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: Isolationism [Re: Hank, FTW]
#6007824 - 08/29/06 10:49 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
alpharedecho said: Fuck the oil? Our economies are so Dependant on oil, that is not an option.
That is pretty much my point.
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: But I think some amount of internationalism should be exercised.
Well, there would certainly still be relationships with other countries, and I think countries would still influence each other, but it definitely wouldn't be similar to the standard for behavior today (invasion, threats, etc.).
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 6 months, 28 days
|
|
Open and free trade.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: Isolationism [Re: Redstorm]
#6007966 - 08/29/06 11:34 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Don't our interests as a nation automatically extend to the nations that we engage in free trade with, then, thus ensuring that we become anything but isolated?
For example, say we trade x cars to Mongolia for x amount of lumber (or whatever ), and x amount of people in the United States rely on that exchange for their livelihood, and then China starts invading Mongolia... its our economic stability that becomes threatened by China's actions!
Or am I simply not looking at it the right way (which is greatly possible, since I am in no way educated in economics, politics, or what have you)?
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
|
An excerpt from a recent thread:
Quote:
The U.N. Security Council has given Iran until Thursday to suspend uranium enrichment -- a process which can produce fuel for civilian reactors or explosive material for warheads -- and has threatened sanctions unless it does so.
Isn't this the inevitable result? Some country engages in actions that threatens a specific interest, and then some collective establishment that results from our international relationships of trade threatens to limit trade to that country? We become anything but isolated because of the fact that we are dependant on other countries due to the fact that we freely, openly trade with them?
 Peace
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
daimyo
Monticello

Registered: 05/13/04
Posts: 7,751
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
|
|
Bring all of our troops and weaponry home, close the borders and stop trade. After that, kick out all illegals. Fuck the consequences, we can work through them. Once all settles we will be much better off becuase of it.
--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
|
Silversoul writes:
Quote:
I just don't believe in coming into other countries uninvited and exerting our will over them.
Like the Balkans, for example? Or Rwanda or Darfur?
Not saying I disagree with that stance, mind you -- just looking for clarification.
Phred
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Isolationism [Re: Phred]
#6008593 - 08/29/06 02:42 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Well, if you want clarification, one intervention that I definitely agree with was in Liberia. Both sides of that conflict asked us to come in as a peace-keeping force, and when we came, we were celebrated as heroes. The only regrettable thing is that we didn't arrive sooner.
So basically, I'm fine with peacekeeping missions, which don't involve overthrowing some regime. That's not to say I'd necessarily rule out the possiblity of overthrowing a regime either. But if we do, I would prefer that we not do so unilaterally, and that we have a competent and comprehensive plan for handing over power and leaving.
--------------------
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 6 months, 28 days
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said: Don't our interests as a nation automatically extend to the nations that we engage in free trade with, then, thus ensuring that we become anything but isolated?
For example, say we trade x cars to Mongolia for x amount of lumber (or whatever ), and x amount of people in the United States rely on that exchange for their livelihood, and then China starts invading Mongolia... its our economic stability that becomes threatened by China's actions!
Or am I simply not looking at it the right way (which is greatly possible, since I am in no way educated in economics, politics, or what have you)?
 Peace.
I'm not saying we should cut off all ties to other countries, just that the only ties we should have are diplomatic ones. We should make it clear that we will not come to anyone's aid militarily. Sat China does invade Mongolia and take over. We can then trade China for the lumber that used to be Mongolia's. Honestly, I don't give a shit about either of them as long as we get what we need.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
Well, if you want clarification, one intervention that I definitely agree with was in Liberia.
What about the Balkans, Rwanda or Darfur? Do you agree with the decision to intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo? Do you agree with the decisions to NOT intervene in Rwanda and Darfur?
I guess I'm trying to understand what criteria you are using to determine when intervention is a good thing and when leaving other countries to their own devices is a good thing, because I admit I can't grasp the underlying principle in the fctors you have mentioned so far --
Quote:
Both sides of that conflict asked us to come in as a peace-keeping force...
So you wouldn't have approved of the Balkan intervention, or of doing anything in Darfur or Rwanda, since both sides didn't want intervention from outside -- just one.
Quote:
So basically, I'm fine with peacekeeping missions, which don't involve overthrowing some regime.
So that let's out Rwanda and Darfur. Fair enough.
Quote:
That's not to say I'd necessarily rule out the possiblity of overthrowing a regime either. But if we do, I would prefer that we not do so unilaterally...
Why not? What is the principle upon which you base your opinion that a single country doing a good thing (peacekeeping) is bad, but several countries doing the exact same thing (peacekeeping) is good? And how many countries must be involved in the intervention for it to gain the title "multilateral"?
Quote:
... and that we have a competent and comprehensive plan for handing over power and leaving.
Are you saying it's better for the situation (usually wholesale slaughter) occurring in the country targeted for intervention to continue for however long it takes the eggheads in Washington puzzle out all the steps for a foolproof handover of power than it is to stop the slaughter immediately while simultaneously working out those details?
Phred
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Isolationism [Re: Phred]
#6009260 - 08/29/06 06:10 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I don't feel sufficiently informed on all the operations you mentioned to comment on each one, so I'll just give a rough outline of my criteria:
1. First and foremost, we have to know what we're getting into.
2. Peacekeeping operations I'm generally ok with.
3. If we must wage war, it should be done multilaterally if at all possible, especially when toppling regimes, so as to avoid appearing as conquerors.
4. We must not do more damage than necessary to neutralize the threat.
5. A more immediate and possibly unilateral response may be warranted if there are sufficient ongoing atrocities(not ones that happened 10 years ago) or if the country poses an immanent threat.
Of course, these are just guidelines. Every conflict is different, and there may be situations in which I would stray from these.
--------------------
|
Skeptikos
GeneticallyEngineeredBonobo

Registered: 01/15/06
Posts: 145
Loc: Rome, west side
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
|
I prefer a non-interventionist foreign policy, while allowing individuals to donate their own money, lives and other resources to causes which may stir their altruistic impulses, as long as their donations do not entail aggression against American citizens on American soil.
The money currently spent on keeping foreign governments friendly and supplying military force and weapons to ensure the flow of petroleum would be better spent on research into alternative energy with the goal of relieving the U.S. of the pretense of hoisting the White Man\'s Burden of democratizing or civilizing the mid-east. The semetic tribes should be allowed to blast each other into oblivion, their Hatfield and McCoy mentalities are not befitting civilized peoples and should be enjoyed from a distance with bags of freshly popped hot-buttered popcorn and an objective view towards teaching our children the dangers of dogmatic belief systems and mindless blood feuds.
-------------------- Sincerely, Skeptikos
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: Isolationism [Re: daimyo]
#6011435 - 08/30/06 11:45 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
daimyo said: Bring all of our troops and weaponry home, close the borders and stop trade. After that, kick out all illegals. Fuck the consequences, we can work through them. Once all settles we will be much better off becuase of it.
Well, for the most part, this is kind of what I am wondering.
I don't think it could even be possible to do it fully, effective immediately, but I think it might be in our best interest to gradually bring our focus back within ourselves. It would have to be ensured that everyone would have a means of supporting their survival. I wonder if it would be possible to arrange an economic model in such a manner and still be able to sustain the livelihood of the amount of individuals living in this country as we speak. 
I mean, trade wouldn't necessarily have to be shut off, but if an American's livelihood is dependant on trade, then that is the problem, it seems. It is why we are not isolated.
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
|