This is basically my opinion.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.
American Isolationism vs. Interventionism
- Thread starter Ronojoy1917
- Start date
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
Res ipsa loquitur.
Interventionism made and continues to make America the greatest power in the world, perhaps the greatest power the world has ever seen. It allowed them to have their hand in every part of the world, and resulting from this, most importantly to spread their world view. The benefits of globalisation for America today can be put down to interventionism over isolationism. I would say it's worked splendidly well for them. A few failures that could be seen as a consequence of the broad success don't take as much away from it as it would appear.
I'm personally of the opinion that, although American interventionism is not necessarily a good thing, isolationism certainly isn't. America has a moral obligation, IMO, to use its force for good. Now, my support for their foreign policy entirely depends on what form that interventionism takes, and whether it represents the fulfilment of their moral obligation or a sheer quest for fulfilling the US national interest (although I'd definitely argue that these are, in reality, inevitably one in the same, the US national interest is all too often construed as being something very different).
Berzerker
Deity
How would the US be advantaged by turning its back on the policy that has made it the superpower it is today? America's economic power is based on the US being a global power.
Berzerker
Deity
the question was about foreign policy, not economics, ie "isolation" = non-intervention within the context of this thread... and our power comes from our natural "isolation" and the rebuilding effort following wwii
on the other hand, I'm sure someone would argue protectionism did help this country.
on the other hand, I'm sure someone would argue protectionism did help this country.
Berzerker
Deity
intervening is a drain on the economy, sure we make bombs and bullets but that money (and lives) could be put to better use
onedreamer
Dragon
can you please link me with some document or something that shows that US ever had an isolationist foreign policy? Isolationist is for example Switzerland. You could start as early as the Manifest Destiny.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
America's better off not intervening in many cases. Any wars we wage should be quick, cheap, and profitable - i.e. the Spanish-American War. Most wars aren't these days. Better to let them sort their issues out.
We have a huge deficit anyway, and so our foreign policy should primarily be linked to mutual defense(or not, we can has nukes so terrorism is really the only area we need to cooperate in) and expanding trade. Our military should be gutted and foreign policy take the stance of investments. Walk softly and carry a big stick.
Or, let me sum it up: You should make sure your own house is spotless before you try and become a maid in someone else's.
We have a huge deficit anyway, and so our foreign policy should primarily be linked to mutual defense(or not, we can has nukes so terrorism is really the only area we need to cooperate in) and expanding trade. Our military should be gutted and foreign policy take the stance of investments. Walk softly and carry a big stick.
Or, let me sum it up: You should make sure your own house is spotless before you try and become a maid in someone else's.
Berzerker
Deity
the thread is about intervention vs non-intervention (isolationism)
the latter does not mean tariffs, protectionism, or not fostering links to other countries - it just means we dont run around "intervening".
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
That really has nothing to do with it. The US was an economic power long before it foolishly decided to become the world's police after WWII. Even in WWII, the US didn't officially take sides before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. And the US still didn't declare war on Germany. They declared war on the US the next day for declaring war on Japan.
And how does being a superpower help the US economically? Do we physically coerce other countries to trade with us? Do we force them to pay their workers more so that American workers won't lose their jobs to the more greedy corporations who exploit their citizens? Would we not be able to trade with a particular country if we didn't have a naval fleet within days of their coast?
About the only direct economic effect is that it makes them think twice about nationalizing US corporations. They know all too well what might then happen given what occurred in Iran, Cuba, and Chile.
That is a very good point. Few nations today are truly isolationist. Yet the vast majority of them wouldn't even think of trying to intervene in the affairs of other sovereign countries, except in really unusual circumstances and especially in a unilateral manner.
It should really be called "Overly-aggressive US interventionism: good or bad".
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
We hardly import Middle Eastern oil. 62% of our imported oil comes from Canada, Nigeria, Mexico and Venezuela; Saudi Arabia and Iraq can hardly muster 7% combined. So I'm going to politely ask you to cease discussion of things you fail to understand.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Besides, we can always just keep kowtowing to the Arab countries which do have oil:
No need to invade when we can use conventional diplomatic means to accomplish the same thing.
No need to invade when we can use conventional diplomatic means to accomplish the same thing.
Again, you're thinking of it as being a purely military based question. It's not. Tariffs are intervention in a way, but that's not even what I'm talking about. The Marshall Plan was intervention. The Truman Doctrine was intervention. Neither of those directly involved military intervention. Just economic intervention and the threat of military intervention respectively. Diplomatic positioning with Western Europe, not involving direct military intervention in a conflict, allowed for the proliferation of American culture, giving the US the hegemonic cultural and economic power which it has today. Interventionism isn't simply about deploying a bunch of Marines. It's much more heavily economic and diplomatic.
Aegis
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,970
You mean other than rounding up all of the Japanese Americans during WWII and single-handedly destroying a continent's worth of Native American population and culture?
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
While the claim that our intervention led to 9/11 is poppycock... the fact is, in this world full of humans, you can't make everyone happy.
If you intervene, you piss people off.
If you don't, you piss people off, and really bad people do really bad things (WW2 for example)...
I don't think it is our job to babysit the world, and by "our", I don't just mean the USA... I mean the entire developed world (however you want to define it).
In the end, I am all for isolationism whether money is tight or plentiful.
At least if you finally stop isolating yourself, it is usually for a very good reason (see WW2 comment above). You can throw down the gloves and go total war, and your people will accept it.
Intervening leads to sending children of your nation all over the world for very questionable motives, at great cost, with terribly restricted rules of engagement that cost yet more lives, and for what direct benefit to your nation?
I say this as a veteran.
Point is still relevant. You are heavily reliant on other sources of oil outside of the US. And guess what, you are still as reliant on Middle Eastern oil as everyone else. Cause if they stop shipping, oil prices go through the roof regardless of the origin of the oil.
So I'm going to politely ask you to cease discussion of things you fail to understand.
