Well I have just finsihed listening to the president in his State of The Union speech. I have suggested in other threads that the US should go isolationist. George W. Bush says this is an absolute no-no. Looks like I owe the board an apology
Well Stilla, We do agree on one thing!
If the goal is solely to defend one's self I cannot understand any justification for not going isolationist, although I suppose you could say as in chess you must keep on the offense to tie up the opponent's energy, attention and resources so he cannot mount his own adequate offense.
I think the real reasons are sadly enough gaining a better image for the party president as a strong Man at War leader, economic impetus and shifting attention. Alternatively, he actually beleives Jesus has appointed him to liberate the world...by force! The drawback is that hundreds of thousands of people die and the local economy plunges, but the benefit is eventually a more free society. Equal to that I think is that the military establishment is a deranged and out-of-control self-sustaining machine (kind of like the WTBTS) that will find a way to make a war somehow, "defense" just isn't exciting enough and doesn't provide the right opportunity for the ongoing study of the science of offensive warfare. Got to do something with all those fancy new bombs, and trained soldiers can't be allowed to get too rusty you know. However, in a couple of decades technology will have reached a level so that U.S. soldiers will generally not be needed to fight on the ground...which is scary for the "enemy" when there are no U.S. deaths to sway public support thus the call for more math and science kids (think T2). You've got your hawks always itching to fight, that's all they know how to do. Honestly, after trying to look at the situation objectively, I have concluded that the leaders of the world are mainly just having great fun playing with exorbitant military budgets, stroking their egos and achieving their personal and party agendas. With a small dose of charity and compassion thrown in for good measure, of course.
However, in a couple of decades technology will have reached a level so that U.S. soldiers will generally not be needed to fight on the ground...which is scary for the "enemy" when there are no U.S. deaths to sway public support thus the call for more math and science kids (think T2).
I had not thought about it that way. I do think it is important to graduate more scientists, mathematicians and engineers, technologists etc - and LESS F------G LAWYERS
Woodrow Wilson was wrong to go to war to make the world safe for democracy and George W.Bush is just as wrong to impose democracy by the point of a gun.
Isolationism is the right choice.
While GW Bush is a pussy, and isolationism is for pussies, I'm at least glad to see that GW Bush is not an isolationist-pussy.
Lord help me, did I just take up for GW Bush?
Of course, some forms of isolationism are possible, so it's first important to define terms. However, political disengagement would lead to commercial changes.
One often one finds unrealistic ideas about the economic impact on US citizens; most forms of isolationism would lead to a rise in prices. The term is normally used as a magical word, a bit like Dorethy in WIzard of Oz; "There's no place like home". Say 'isolationism' and you can pretend all the problems go.
Realsitically, isolationism as a solution to the US's problems is like Santa Claus as a solution to buying Christmas presents.
I think the US has a pivotal role to play in the progress of the World, for good... or for worse...
Some interesting reading.
great article - thanks for the link abbaddon
George Washington set the policy of friendship with other nations but no "entangling alliances." The US should trade freely with all countries, but other nations disputes should not be the concern of the United States. The only exception is when another nation threatens United States territory or citizens. In that case the United States should defend itself by all means necessary and does not need the permission of any other nation or organization.
What does the foreign policy set by an English 18th Century gentleman farmer have to do with the 21st Century?
Isn't it just the tiniest bit possible international affairs have changed since then, and a simplistic stance suitable for a small political power with no International presense, no industry and no standing army of any size is no longer suitable for the most powerful country in the world?