American Isolationism vs. Interventionism

[Ronojoy1917]

Inspired by another thread, I began thinking about how far the U.S. has shifted from its isolationist foreign policy a hundred or so years ago. So which foreign policy ideology do you think has served American interests better? Which one is more ethical? Would the world be better off if the U.S. went back to isolationist in the coming years?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Isolationism usually, at least, if we're going to intervene to "Protect our interests" by installing dictators, its better we just stay out of it.

Bringing freedom to a country isn't something that should be done lightly, but there may be cases where its totally ridiculous and we might have a case to invade.

 

[warpus]

American interventionism has not really worked out that well for them overall and has lead to things like 9/11.. BUT.. it is a vital part of their foreign policy so it ain't changing anytime soon.

Isolationism wouldn't really work either. It's the 'something in between' that you want.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Isolationism wouldn't really work either. It's the 'something in between' that you want.

It worked for us for over 100 years.

If England and France actually had smart leadership before World War II, instead of needing "Appeasement" we would have gotten rid of Hitler right away. Even before that, if we allowed World War I to stay a war between land alliances, we could have stayed out of things far, far longer than we had.

Would it still work today? Probably not, but its possible.

 

[tycoonist]

It worked for us for over 100 years.

100 years ago, America wasn't reliant on other countries for anything pretty much. But today, if the Middle East stopped shipping oil, America would go into melt down. Times change.

 

[aronnax]

It worked for us for over 100 years.

If England and France actually had smart leadership before World War II, instead of needing "Appeasement" we would have gotten rid of Hitler right away. Even before that, if we allowed World War I to stay a war between land alliances, we could have stayed out of things far, far longer than we had.

Would it still work today? Probably not, but its possible.

Isolationism worked in Bhutan too! Until the foreigners came...

The only reason why isolationism worked for America for so long was because it was a bit of a non-issue in European affairs. "Will the Americans intervene?" was
the last of things Prussia thought about as it mowed down Austria.

And semi-isolationist is probably better. The USA invested a lot into the foreign affairs of nations in the western hemisphere.


The whole appeasement myth needs to end. What did you expect Chamberlain to do with his army of several hundred thousand and a couple of farm animals in Dover with a state still recovering from the combined effects of the depression and WWI and a nation who are opposed to the thought of war because the last round was so terrible.

 

[duckstab]

What really needs to go is not so much interventionism, as unilateralism. That's far easier said than done because the UN and other international institutions are so defective, but over time it's what the world needs to evolve into.

 

[SuperJay]

If England and France actually had smart leadership before World War II, instead of needing "Appeasement" we would have gotten rid of Hitler right away.

Really? Really?

 

[GhostWriter16]

100 years ago, America wasn't reliant on other countries for anything pretty much. But today, if the Middle East stopped shipping oil, America would go into melt down. Times change.

Drill baby drill.

The whole appeasement myth needs to end. What did you expect Chamberlain to do with his army of several hundred thousand and a couple of farm animals in Dover with a state still recovering from the combined effects of the depression and WWI and a nation who are opposed to the thought of war because the last round was so terrible.

Germany had NOTHING. The minute Hitler started demanding territory, they should have said "No."

Really? Really?

Yep, really.

 

[bombshoo]

America needs to do more than just intervene. It needs to conquer. If the whole world were part of the USA, we could mess around wherever we wanted and it would all just be a part of our domestic policy.

 

[GhostWriter16]

America needs to do more than just intervene. It needs to conquer. If the whole world were part of the USA, we could mess around wherever we wanted and it would all just be a part of our domestic policy.

I'm gonna sig this.

 

[tycoonist]

Drill baby drill.

Are you suggesting that if the US drilled more, it could support its oil needs on its own? Or am i misreading you?

 

[Gangor]

The US has been officially interventionist since 1823. The question should be "more or less interventionism", rather than "isolationism or interventionism".

 

[GhostWriter16]

Are you suggesting that if the US drilled more, it could support its oil needs on its own? Or am i misreading you?

Maybe not all of it, but certainly more of it.

 

[amadeus]

I prefer non-interventionism as opposed to isolationism. I don't want us to isolate ourselves, I just want us to stay out of the business of other countries. Those countries should reciprocate and get their noses out of our business as well.

 

[Formaldehyde]

America needs to do more than just intervene. It needs to conquer. If the whole world were part of the USA, we could mess around wherever we wanted and it would all just be a part of our domestic policy.

While I might agree that the more backward states could use some conquering, as many advocate we do to other foreign countries, the great benefit to being an American is that we are relatively immune to the ludicrous foreign policy decisions of our own government. That until quite recently, the US military, the CIA, and most of our other "intelligence" organizations were forbidden to conduct operations in this country unless a state of declared martial law existed.

I prefer non-interventionism as opposed to isolationism. I don't want us to isolate ourselves, I just want us to stay out of the business of other countries. Those countries should reciprocate and get their noses out of our business as well.

I couldn't agree more. Fortunately, other countries already "reciprocate" in this regard for the most part, and they always have.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Isolationism usually, at least, if we're going to intervene to "Protect our interests" by installing dictators, its better we just stay out of it.

Bringing freedom to a country isn't something that should be done lightly, but there may be cases where its totally ridiculous and we might have a case to invade.

This type of misguided altruism has no place on the global stage.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Inspired by another thread, I began thinking about how far the U.S. has shifted from its isolationist foreign policy a hundred or so years ago. So which foreign policy ideology do you think has served American interests better? Which one is more ethical? Would the world be better off if the U.S. went back to isolationist in the coming years?

That's a wasted question, because the approaches of the past may work for the past but not for the present. The reason isolationism worked for so long was because it wasn't important for the US to be involved in foreign affairs. It was largely self-sufficient and, in fact, was constantly expanding. It was far away from the machinations of Europe and so could afford to ignore them. And this isolationism was relative. The US fought a war in Mexico, and negotiated treaties with Spain, France, Russia, and Great Britain to expand. It enacted the Monroe Doctrine to avoid European interference in the Americas. There is no way the US can avoid any involvement in foreign affairs today.

 

[Tahuti]

Interventionism, definitely.

Imagine the world if the US didn't aid Britain during WWII; Britain would have gone bankrupt before the Battle of Britain even started.
And yes, the US blockade of Japan made war more likely if not inevitable, but it certainly prevented the gobbling up of Asia by a Fascist power and proved the be favorable for US interests as well.

Now it is true that the Second Gulf War was a mistake in that Saddam Hussein wasn't connected to the 9/11 terrorists in any way, but that doesn't say unilateral military action is bad in itself.
While the consequences of misusing intervention can be grave, the possible consequences of non-intervention in the face of immenent threat to attack can be outright disastrous, as Neville Chamberlain proved.

 

[tycoonist]

Maybe not all of it, but certainly more of it.

good luck with that.

PS you don't have enough. Not close.