If the US were to become ISOLATIONIST

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by hapaboy, Apr 23, 2003.

  1. Many ETers, notably those with an anti-war perspective, have put forward the idea that massive US foreign policy debacles are the root cause of many, if not most, of the world's ills, and that the world would be better served if the US were to mind its own business and in essence withdraw from the world's stage militarily and politically.

    WERE THE U.S. TO DO SO, WHAT WOULD BE THE END RESULT?

    Comments along with your votes, please.
     
  2. How stupid are the people to be just reflect of what medias want them to be:

    "News is what someone wants to suppress. Everything else is advertising."
    - Rubin Frank, former president NBC News

    "We tell the people what they need to know, not what they want to know."
    - Frank Sesno, CNN News

    "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."
    - Richard Salent, former pres. CBS News

    This question is silly. It is not question of wars between countries in fact it is question of wars between the big elites (big I mean really big not those with a fortune of only a few hundred billions) and the people. The big elites are controlling both sides of every war: they don't care who wins. What they care is to have war. So we will have war whichever country is controlling.

     
  3. So your answer as it relates to the topic of this thread is.......?????

    :confused: :confused: :confused:
     
  4. My answer is not in your set of answers :)

    My answer is

    "A more chaotic and dangerous world" but it will be not due to the fact that the United States wouln't control the World or not.

     
  5. Harry I'm sorry, but a schizophrenic reading from the Old Testament in the middle of an 8-day binge of smoking crystal methamphetamine and getting absolutely no sleep for the duration is far more lucid than you are.

    I'm not trying to insult you, really. I honestly don't know what the heck you are saying on this or any of the other threads you have posted on.


    :confused: :confused: :confused:
     
  6. I wonder why you don't understand since some considers that it is just cut and paste. Don't you understand your own AMERICAN JOURNALISTS ABOVE huh ? I won't insult you either to tell you that I won't be able to teach you your own mother's tongue haha :D

    I honestly didn't want to confuse you but just make you remark that you just content of repeating the press opinion instead of thinking by yourself.

    P.S.: stop smoking drugs and perhaps your mental health will be better. I don't smoke myself not even a cigarette :)

     
  7. :confused: :confused: :confused:
     
  8. You've been clamoring for the US to mind its own business, so let's hear your view of an isolationist-US world.
     
  9. Without question..

    A more chaotic and dangerous world
     
  10. I've addressed this theme several times on ET, most recently while discussing US policy in Iraq and what I believed to be the lack of alternatives to confrontation.

    I believe a retreat from responsibility by the US would most likely lead to advancement into the resultant power vacuum by competing regional powers and stateless organizations, many possessing weapons of mass destruction, many led by groups and individuals who possess illimitable ambitions and little moral restraint, with no demonstrably effective international force to oppose them. The likelihood of regional wars and of one of the world's nuclear powers undertaking an extreme reaction to one or another provocation, or on the basis of some convenient pretext, would rise immeasurably.

    It's possible that reaction to the use of nuclear weapons or other WMDs would be met by renewed efforts to ban them, but it's also possible that the post-Nagasaki taboo would be broken, leading to repeated use and eventually to acceptance of them as "normal" military tools. There is also no reason to believe that weapons development in the world has suddenly come to an end, and a more dangerous world would very likely give new incentive to proceed with a new generation of biological, chemical, environmental, information, space-based and other unconventional weapons.

    Even with strong US involvement around the world, the global situation could still deteriorate along the above lines, but responsible use and projection of pre-eminent US power currently gives the best chance during the critical near term period to induce potential competitors to focus on economic development and peaceful co-existence. In the longer term, stronger transnational institutions would be desirable, but the United Nations has shown itself far from being able to assume such responsibilities. At this historical moment, the US remains the essential nation in the world both in terms of security and economics, and most responsible national leaders recognize that fact, however begrudgingly.
     
    #10     Apr 23, 2003