America On Lockdown.........
City Hall
Should the US close its borders / sever ties with the world?
America On Lockdown.........
Should the US close its borders / sever ties with the world?
- Yes
- 9 votes
- No
- 19 votes
- Not sure
- 2 votes
- Don't care at all
- 3 votes
Only members can vote.
page 1 of 1
page 1 of 1
Only members can post replies, please register.
I was watching the victims of 9-11 families make speeches after the Moussoui trial earlier on NBC, and one gentleman said something that started my wheels in my head (hard to do a lot) to turn.
He said that we should commit a great deal of our resources and close down the northern and southern borders! That's right, he wants America to simply switch to "stealth mode", sever diplomatic ties and let the world run whatever course its on.
Personally, I think he's on to something...... a part of me agrees with this because to other half can't come up with very solid reasons why we shouldn't close the borders. From the conception to World War 2, the United States of America was in fact not involved with the state of affairs of the world. Now, the US has its troop in nearly every part of the globe, and people risking life and limb to become an American. So, I am going to play Devils Advocate (again) and say that the US should cut all ties, recall all our troops and business, and close the borders! My reason is because we (the US) really do have the natural resources to sustain and thrive economically without the international community, not to mention having the defensive capabilities to discourage enemies from attacking.
I ask of you all to convince me with valid reasons why the US should continue to be a part of the international community in all aspects (socially, economically, militarily etc.). Even the anti-us people can join in on this....... as long as it is productive and not counterproductive.
I
believe that this should give me an overall picture of how others outside of the
US really think of the American people.
So are you suggesting cutting off all trade as well with closing the borders? Well, I don't really see a benefit, I mean you can look at 2 major points in history when america was attacked, Pearl Harbor was attacked when we still weren't really involved with the rest of the world and look at the devastation that caused. Now on the other hand, look what happened on 9/11 when we were a major part of the international community. At the time of Pearl Harbor in that age we were still probably the worlds strongest superpower and we could't defend ourselves, just as in 9/11 the same deal. So in that area I see no positive or negative. Speaking from a personal standpoint, I like our diverse culture here in the US, I find it fascinating how all different cultures find a way here. I like the trade with other countries as I'm sure they like our trade, I think we come out mutually beneficial. So I voted no, hope that was good enough response
Yes. Cut off ALL international ties!
Oh you are so right! Once we were thought as weak, for our involvement in the world during WW2 was pretty much nonexistent. Then, while we are at the pinnacle as the worlds only superpower, we were struck again, using our northern borders as a means to attack innocent civilians! So I see closing all borders and severing international ties extremely beneficial for the protection and security of our citizens.
Culturally speaking, we have a diversified group of Americans now. Why accept more? Why do we need to continue trade with other countries when those countries will benefit far much better than our own? If the United States can economically develop itself without the help of other countries as before, then why can't countries rely on other nations to develop?
man......this is fun.......
The United States cannot close its borders and sever its ties with the world. Period. Before World War II, it was possible for us to do so; we were self-sufficient, and we faced no credible threats to our national security from elsewhere in the world. During and after World War II, however, that changed; new threats (Germany, and then the Soviet Union) that could hurt us if given time emerged (for our part, World War II could be said to be a pre-emptive war against Germany), and we became dependent on other countries for manufactured goods to the detriment of our own industrial base, which has been allowed to decline, as well as oil, which our economy needs to survive, and the demand for which cannot be met with domestic sources anymore.
Incidentally, the proposition bears a certain striking resemblance to Stalin's Soviet Union. Under Stalin, the Soviet Union largely isolated itself from the world diplomatically and economically, was capable of sustaining its isolation on its own resources, and much of the world was more than happy to oblige it. We all know how that turned out.
I beg to differ. Case in point:
Americas' textile industries were nearly the first to fall under NAFTA. Many textile companies close their factories and moved into China, Taiwan, and Korea, however a good 75% of that same industry moved into Mexico! Soon automobiles, electronics, and appliances were "Made or assembled in Mexico". The products that were "Made in America" are an endangered species......if they exist they are horribly expensive! NAFTA was designed to bring underdeveloped countries "up to speed" economically. I also think it was designed to keep its Mexican citizens from illegally entering the US and seeking jobs - jobs that were meant for the American citizens. As for oil, we have the technical know how to develop "clean energy". Hydrogen-based cars and trucks, solar, hydrodynamic and nuclear energy can be use effectively and efficiency within the next 20 years, if not sooner. Besides we still hold two of the world biggest oil deposits: in the remote regions of Alaska and off in the Gulf of Mexico. Oil really isn't the big deal as everyone put it. If all the oil in the world vanish tomorrow, we will sure to find a solution. So, everybody can keep their oil.......we don't need it! Cut off ties and close the borders!
The difference between the US and Stalin's Soviet Union was Capitalism. The Soviets concept was that everyone pull all their resources into the Government and the Government distributes the products back into its people. I find the only flaw is that man is inherently greedy, and some took more than others. With Capitalism and Democracy flowing in Americas society and government, I find that it not the same as the former USSR.
*does the "happy dance"* come on guys and girls...........convince me.....
merged: 05-05-2006 ~ 02:44am
:NOTE: Since I made the thread, I feel that I should not count myself in the vote. My vote will give either side an unfair advantage on how the outcome would be.
Your assessment of the oil supply is flawed, in that it only looks at oil as an energy source. It has other uses which can't so easily be replaced by things like solar and nuclear power. Look around your house, or just around where you're sitting. How much of what you see is made of plastic?
Plastic is one of the great advances of industrial civilization. It has so very uses, and so many forms to fit those uses.
And even if we switched to other sources for energy, we'd still need oil to make plastics.
Also, why are you using an international agreement in support of your argument that we should close our borders?
Ah, plastic......forgot about that!
You
almost got me , however plastic is recyclable! Recycling will greatly decrese
the use of oil roughly 45 to 50%!
Good question. I hope that I can answer this to your liking:
Not everyone has contempt for America, I am aware of that. However and unfortunately, most do. So I put myself in their shoes for this moment and wondered what could the US can expect to accomplish without the international community? After sitting here thinking, my conclusion was astonishing!
Do we really need to outsource our jobs?
Do we need to admit the large influx of refugees and illegal immigrants into our country?
With the abundance of natrual resources availible, do we really need to rely on other countries for thiers? You should research on really how much oil deposits are really stored in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska.....the only reason these resources aren't tapped is because of current enviormental issues and regulations imposed on the industry. If the industry diverted 25% or even 10% of their revenue into developing safer, cleaner ways to access and refine these deposits without endangering the ecosystem, then we won't really need any other countrys oil. This, with recycling and alternative sources of energy, can save whatever oil deposits we have left, plus develop a cleaner enviorment for us all.
Plus, I want to see what other reasons why we should withdraw and become a isolated country!
Speaking of myself. I was not born here in US. and rasie here. Or hate my people. If they close the tie down. That just stuip. Before you jump to conclusion. Read what I saying before you make a judyment. What happen 9/11 and Pearl Harbor America could never forget. If you think about it. Other area of the world face terrorist almost every week or day or every night. Dose that mean they should close their board as well. If we close ours, then it should be ok to let them close, right?
Is that the same as person shut the door at your face saying you are not welcome go a way or else?I don't want to do anything with you, and everyone that tie with you kind (outsider) should leaven. That how I see it. It can come the say way as trades. Like LordStyphon say about the oil and sources energy. I think it cost a lot of money to close the board and trades.
I understand, however with the growing number of people who dislike the idea that America is in everyone backyard, that America itself forgotten to protect its own people. The best way to protect its own people and preserve our way of life is to close the borders! But we simply can't close the borders and continue international relationships and trade with the world, especially those with hostile intent.....so it would be best to not only to close borders but to also sever ties, to prevent the same mistake from happening again. As for illegal immigration, the economical impact that this is having; for the US is at its boiling point. Revenues and incomes is going down, unemployment is on the rise. Business has realized that paying a illegal immigrant "under the table" is cheaper than hiring a skill worker who needs more. To solve this crisis, it is better to close the borders also. As for them closing their borders, who care? Its all about self-sufficiency and self-reliance now.
You see, you making this difficult for me to remain the Devils Advocate......
If everyone wants to complain and criticize the US on how they are involved with the world, then they should welcome this turn of events! They get the evil American soldiers who "eat their babies" out of their lands. However, they want to continue to have financial support from the US government? If they want us out then we should pull out of every country the US has any involvement in, and let them deal with their own aftermath. For a fact I know that North Korea will run over South Korea like a runaway freight train if the US pulls out!
well, I can understand sort of where you are coming from, but the idea of this debation seems a bit off from my point of view. I dunno if you are aware, the reason why China never became a superpower sooner than it should also includes the factor it took this shutting borders thing too seriously and stopped at its own stage of decline.
What happen was at its booming state back in the time when people still use sail boats and ride horses (it was one of those emperor eras etc... can't remember the exact detail), an emperor of the times, ordered a direct banment on all forms of knowledge from outside and the inside eventually, burning tons of books and teaching equipments, this was because of the short term benefit of the stupid emperor's advisors. Whom later got promoted to viceroy and eventually died. Which was dumb, because he left a path that will cause China to descend greatly (followed by the Opium war, westerner's forced entry, etc.)
We have a name for this as "closing the doors to create an automobile" a modern way of saying it.
While the emperor is stupid at the time, the nation is indeed rich, China at that stage has managed to have enough population to constantly support itself for the next few hundred years.
However, they did not count on the things such as their superior technology, and knowledge was already leaked out due to their wide trades, and thus, why at the time, when it re-opened again, China was facing a severe lack of knowledge, funds, and resources (intellectual especially) and had to shift their attention to allowing outside traders which led to many disfunctionalities such as the Opium War and invasions to be set forth.
This scene was evident until Chairman Mao formed the communist party and led the country to a better tomorrow when the balance was formed once more (albeit unfairly said as pointed out by many historians, as the communist system can only work on temporary solution until greed sets in).
On topic, America is far superior in comparison to the China then, I highly doubt you guys would burn your own science labs and what is not, but in doing so, are you not allowing your nation to fall behind? Even with all the scientists in your country and constant development, won't America suffer in the long term?
The US Dollar may be a little lesser significant as it already is with the Euro and many other currencies becoming current and future favorites, does that not mean it affects your country's economic development as well?
While people of the world bicker on America being in everyone'e backyard, I hardly see them as totally complaining, which I bet a war would have started should any short tempered nation leader sought to express himself or herself literally with warfare means. (even if it was a clear failure)
I also don't see much benefit for America to seal itself off, would that not be like telling your citizens "hey c'mon, let us get together and be racists and keep ourself pure and all the works" well.... not really racists, that is an externality, depending on how your education system eventually changes if the closure is not properly maintained.
What you are proposing however will put America out of the competition, and thus, allowing foreign powers to grow, although America currently ranges greatly ahead as international superpower, I hardly see them as being superior, more likely over the head if I may say with so many nations now coming together and share a common dislike for America.
This proposal will also inevitably affect the world's economy as we know it, and also, it will be bad if once the social workforce of America is limited to insiders, won't that limit the equal oppurtunities of other countries? (Fairtraders for example).
If America is to seal itself off, would that not mean to reform the way your citizens look at your country? While there is only one man at the moment proposing this idea, I highly doubt if the rest of the american citizens will agree with this move if anything else.
This policy or idea isn't new. The "Return to Normalcy" is a remnant of when America was still an agrarian society as opposed to the more globalized state present today. Though it may have worked well during the nineteenth century, the same cannot be said for the twentieth century implementation of said policy, or the use of isolationism as a policy now. During the Harding and Hoover administrations when isolationism was re-implemented as a response to the first world war, several factors came together to produce the worst economic depression our nation had ever seen. Of the five major causes of the depression, two of them were a direct result of isolationism. The first was of course the overproduction of American industry, the second were the high tariffs that were needed for American industry to compete, and the subsequent lacking of foreign buyers to further trade (these two go hand-in-hand).
Societal stagnation was also a result of this policy, as were other events such as the start of World War II in Europe (Due to the lacking of U.S. Involvement in the league of Nations, who were of course more equatable to a sewing circle than an actual overseeing operation), etc.
The U.S. reversion to Isolationism would of course be disastrous exercise in the foolhardy. Major spheres of influence where we are currently involved or serve as peacekeepers upon our withdrawal will collapse or be overtaken by their neighboring nations (Ex. Israel & South Korea for being overtaken, Iraq and Afghanistan for full-blown societal implosion and power vacuum).
Furthermore, by withdrawing from foreign affairs, we will in fact leave ourselves open to attack, rather than utilizing isolation in hopes of keeping ourselves safe. This may possibly leave us vulnerable to foreign threat who may or may not seize upon the opportunity (such as North Korea and China) to militarily deconstruct the defanged U.S. so that it would not "rise again" and interfere in their affairs.
Overall, Isolationism would be more of a detriment to our planet and our people than it would be beneficial. We're out in the open, yes, although there are ways that we can improve our world so that the things mentioned above do not occur.
Firstly would be the improvement of foreign policy on part of the U.S., much of diplomacy in the U.S. is constituted of threats and sanctions against nations that do not meet expectations, forcing individuals to the bottom of the social ladder, or even to make them think that they are being forced to the bottom of the social ladder. This gives extreme ideologies an appeal whereas they would normally be expected to fall on deaf ears. By recognizing that indeed there is a problem, we should instead try to cure it's cause, and not merely treat it's symptoms.
Secondly would be to hear the grievances of these said nations, and respect their wishes. North Korea has pulled it's nuclear weapons card as a response to U.S. bullying, as has Iran shown no credible evidence of wanting to enrich Uranium to fuel anything more than a standard nuclear powerplant, and is using a similar defensive strategy should the U.S. and the United Nations wish to deprive them of their sovereignty (whether the theat is perceived or real). You can still keep an eye on them, yes, although to go to extreme and extensive measures to intervene in their affairs will carry much of the sentiment as mentioned above.
-It may be wise to think upon the issue of many people from the region simply not wanting to be a U.S. or western styled democracy. These things take time, when people have grown tired of and wish to be rid of their despots, they overthrow them on their own, or request help from stronger nations in doing such. The best example of this same methodology can be traced to of all things, our own country. When the French decided to aid the colononists of the coastal states (13 colonies) in overthrowing their British masters, they did so by recognizing the legitimacy of the colonists, and by adhering to the wishes of those colonists. The French never occupied any U.S. soil, or cities, or forcefully assaulted the colonies to drive out the occupying British to incite a regime change.
Thirdly, if we feel that we are being drawn too thin in international affairs concerning oil, energy, or otherwise, we can resort to measures such as finding alternate sources of energy to lessen dependence on foreign imports, being smarter with our resource consumption and use, and refoming the economy to regain much of the lost base that may have been oursourced.
-Attempting to state that there are enough resources to sustain our nation indefinitely (or let alone during the years immediately after this one) in our own backyard is as fallacious as it is downright suicidal of an idea, once the resources run out, then what? Shall I go begging to the other nations of the world to feed and sustain my economy because in all our infinite wisdom, somebody thought it would be safer to revert back to isolationist policy, rather than learn some form of humility to prevent bad relations from happening to start? Shall my descendants be relegated to third-world standing because our society simply ran out of resources and things to squander, and refused to set personal interest and profit aside?
Additionally is the issue of illegal immigration from Mexico, and smuggling from Canada. Once again, you cannot hope to solve the problem simply by treating it's symptoms, the cause needs to be treated. Mexico has been known to be experiencing significant economic problems due to it's obsolete economic system, and a rather unbalanced system of wealth. Corruption may very well play a part, although Mexico needs significant economic and social reforms, as do such things such as the hiring of illegal immigrants on U.S. soil need to be thouroughly screened for, and discouraged. Putting pressure on Mexico to reform it's economy, and make it so that many Mexicans won't have to illegally immigrate to the U.S. to find work will of course disable part of the problem, the other part of not hiring on illegals in the American work force will solve the other. Some may question the validity of ID cards presented by many of these illegals, although perhaps if we put countermeasures similar to the mechanisms used to foil counterfeit operations into those same things, and necessary technology to recognize which one's real and which one's a dud, we'd probably have a reasonably effective system of preserving U.S. sovereignty, jobs, and that would allow us to keep a healthy economy. Drugs and the associated problems with it's smuggling may be solved by simply decriminalizing the sort, once the forbidden fruit appeal is gone, so too will the fad or clique die, and the drug trade along with it.
We as a nation have already taken flight. There is no returning to the nest or the days of normalcy. There is no burying our collective head in the sand, and anyone who resorts to thinking that there is or can be a return to normalcy has obviously been using some very outdated ideas that would have been better suited to an 1880's farming community, let alone the dawn of the fusion age. Stop idly pining for the "good old days" already and make your future better. Inaction has not, and will never produce desirable results; Even an idiot can grasp this concept. Inaction will lead us nowhere, isolationism will lead us nowhere, we have the capacity still to improve the way we live, and now is the best time to utilize that capability for a better tomorrow, instead of fleeting in fear, or waiting for another generation to face the challenge of change.
P.S. I like this "devil's advocate" approach you've used, it's very unique, and actually I think it's a bit more fun than the debate format we were using prior.
-Acyx
Devildude and Acyx, very good observations.
And
I personally agree on both points of views. HOWEVER, as the Devils Advocate, I
must find some sort of rebuttal to your statements.
However, I can't find none......as Acyx stated before, the last attempt of isolationism proved to be a disaster across the world, The Great Depression. And as for Devildude, Americans has always had that boisterous sort of pride of their country and its accomplishments, and they always try to remain the leader when it comes to developing new innovations, ideas, and technologies.
So I guess I can say that economics and American pride would hinder any attempts of isolationism. Problem is there are other factors remaining:
The fact that we have a immigration problem, coupled with the fact that this weakness in our system can be and is used for the benefit of seeding terrorism within our very own country again. And also like the recent events of UAE's Dubai Ports gaining access of several key US ports after buying P&O from Great Britain; with free trade come a chance of terrorist striking the US economic and trade infrastructure as well. In order to monitor free trade within our infrastructure, we must commit resources to combat this possible threat. However, it would be cheaper (not to mention safer) to just close the borders, and strictly deal in foreign trade on a "by needs" basis.
So far, you guys gave me 2 valid reasons why the US should remain part of the global community. IF you can give me at least 3 out of 5 reasons, you'll convince me.
And herein lies the problem, there aren't many more reasons to disprove the devil's advocate stance (according to the historians I've questioned, and the resources I've gathered), other than many of the ones I mentioned above. Given the great depression was caused by a host of factors, bad timing, and Murphy's law (on crack), the other consequences of us severely undercutting other nations, and letting areas under our sphere of influence simply spiral out of control and lead to global chaos is simply inexcusable.
Think of the U.S. involvement globe-wide in the same way you would a feeding tick. Most of us know that the head of a tick is very small, and quite frail, and has a tendency to break off when the animal is removed from the skin via force, leading to secondary infection; Therefore it must be removed carefully and in a delicate fashion. The same can be said for U.S. overinvolvement in areas of the globe such as the middle east, and Asia. Thouroughly entrenched in the middle east, we in a sense have already latched on, tearing out the U.S. as things stand would lead to sheer chaos. We've already made a mess of things and removed Saddam's lid that kept ethnic conflict under wraps, now we must face that reality, and seek to correct what we have started. Pulling out now would lead to a large balkanized area of warring tribes and possible genocidal actions that could take place between them. The same holds true to Afghanistan in the same sense if the new regimes fail. Iraq's already seems to be cracking under these strains.
Isolationism as some of the participants of the Moussaoui trial have wanted and advocated for will only make matters worse. In the world of international affairs, if somebody says they're going to hurt or kill you, generally you take that threat seriously. China, North Korea, and Iran would probably move to destroy South Korea, Japan (who would probably re-arm, and start another world war), Israel, the stooge regimes of Iraq and Afghanistan, and others without U.S. pressure.. Eventually you'd probably have a massive war with hundreds of millions of casualties as more powers frolicked on a foray of destructionism and annexation, all of which would eventually reach U.S. shores. How inconsiderate of us, we became so powerful, displaced so much other power, ran and regulated everything like it was our own right and duty to do so, and now with our absence, the entire house of cards we built came crashing down. In essence, the results of our withdrawal from the global community would probably lead to extreme catastrophic consequence, which will eventually reach us as well.
In short, it's a bad, suicidal, and outdated idea that should have died with the end of the nineteenth century. Agrarian mindsets and twenty-first century (at the very dawn of the fusion age, mind you) politics don't exactly mix well, and this is one of those instances where this would hold true. Unfortunately, the proponents of the idea of isolationism are just some of the people who idly pine for simpler, more sheltered times and a set of good old days that never existed, or are out of a 1950's episode of "Leave it to Beaver" (for all it's props and glory). All this in opposition to actually taking some initiative, and making a future to match their expectations. Ah, sloth.. it has killed many empires prior. I would not be surprised in the slightest if those advocates of isolationism from the Moussaoui trial were in fact all couch potatos, hopelessly addicted to bland television, and that would consider work to be getting up to find the damned remote, or grabbing another Bud light from the fridge.
Ah, the intellectually devoid, enervated, and how they whine; Each and every convenience at their fingertips, and not a shred of common sense or work ethic about them.
-Acyx
what are you are saying shows that america is enforcing a police like position on the world, and of course it is rather true, but I highly doubt if at this time, the house of cards would have immediately fall as your predictions may say.
Rather, I am sure nations of equal power would not have chosen this rather unwise move.
Your notion rise on the ground that pretending americans who stick their butts in every single angle of political involvement of the world as parental supervision, such as the one on China attacking Korea, which is highly unlikely, given the fact that both nations are so close together, it would have been dangerous to start a war on fairground as well as closer to the borders where invasion to mainland is possible without much chance of failure.
Even with military might of China, it would have been a hassle to lose out on outer borders as well as establishing good defense on the borders outside.
This should prove to be very difficult for China to make the direct choice of getting down and dirty with Korea as well as Japan.
Japan also, given that they do not have the backbone military support of the Americans, would not risk open war with superior states as well as interfere if anything unless absolutely in need to and requested upon, furthermore, with Asian economy centered around supergiants like China, they also benefit from it, it would be both economically unwise to wage war in Asia while severing ties with neighbours, at its current state, it is too small to be significant.
(what happen in world war 2 would hardly have the similiar effect and significance as compared.)
China would not standstill should Japan re-arm for another war, and they would not hesistate to use military might once the seeds of destruction should start spreading and use them to oppress the nations of Asia, which in turn also separates the nation as well, within China, there may be sides that support the oppression and oppose it, depending on situations.
China's superior presence would also mean economic domination, that will prove badly as if people did not work with them, it would benefit none of Asian sides involved should conflict begin to ensue.
That said... I think I just supported the Devil's advocate.
But onto all that, I agree with Acyx, for America to pull out this soon, and that fast, it would be destructive and none beneficial to both sides.
In any case, once the resources have been consumed, the problems begin, whether or not later if America is to revert back to normalcy and reintergrate itself (even if it was a great nation before) into the economic circle would have been nearly impossible. Plus, the world would need a hell lot more to detach itself from the dependance of a supernation.
Say okay, even if America is to seal itself off, for maybe approx the time given, when it wants to come back and reintegrate, it would be impossible for the world to re-concile with a huge leech that is the size of America. The economic circle would fall beneath the weight of the intense inner debt that America would have accumulated on the dependance of other nations for resources as well economic restructuring.
(you can charge yourself for the resources you use, but what about others?)
we're all stuck dealing with each other - there's really no way for any large global country to seal up in borders ("turtle up")... economy would crash in that counrty as well as many others on the "outside"...
regarding walmart - it wouldn't become the dominate supplier - it gets almost all it's stuff from china! they'd be out of business faster then the turning off of a light bulb.
silly to even comtemplate "if" when the answer is already "never gonna happen"
Not immediately no, these things take time. There would be a noticeable void in the ambient power structure that would be wide open toward those who'd wish to exploit it, and the question would no longer be "if", but "when". You need to keep in mind that by removing ourselves as a cornerstone from worldly affairs will in fact have very disastrous consequences, they may not be immediate, but they will be inevitable if the U.S. were to re-revert to isolationism in this current day and age.
Isolationism.. simply just does not work anymore. It is the quintessential square peg in a round hole analogy. The option is dead, no politician worth his salt would recognize this as a legitimate cause whether to protect us from terrorism, or to isolate the American people as anything but afraid, or indifferent. We can't fall back on Isolationism, although we can learn how to improve our foreign policy to prevent things such as the threat of terrorism or war from happening, and also learn to be a bit more clean & efficient with the way in which we live.
merged: 05-10-2006 ~ 04:04am
To follow up, many of the areas I mentioned above have had longstanding ethnic rivalries and grudges with one-another and a tendency to war amongst each other as well. China, Japan, and Korea are no exception to this historical trend. Whether or not these three decide to remain business partners (with the exception of North Korea), or do decide to try and annex one-another without U.S. intervention is best left in the hands of God (or whatever other deity should the isolationism prerequisite be met) to decide. Continual goading of ruling class by some sects of the population could play part, although the most radical piece seems to be that of Stalinist North Korea, which should not be left unsupervised for any reason.
The middle east/Israel scenario seems more accurate for this sort of ethnic dispute, as that there was significant ethnic displacement at it's founding with much of the middle east (as the Jews that were given a state there were not Semites), which in turn has lead to much turmoil. Some, such as the Egyptians and Jordanians have mostly set aside these conflicts, although the Iranians, Lebanese, and Syrians would gladly attempt to smash Israel without the threat of U.S. lead retribution for such an action as recent events have shown.
For Asia, I'd think that there is a much lesser chance of conflict than there is in the middle east. The middle east would be inevitable with U.S. withdrawal, Asia depends on several circumstances that may or may not be met.
Still, Isolationism on part of the U.S. is an incredibly bad idea that will cost many hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people their lives globally, and that will also potentially stagnate our own society here at home, and lead to economic disaster. Is protecting ourselves from a phantom of terrorism really worth all this?
Well, i think that the inmigration issue is tough for the US goverment, since their economy, agriculture and industry depend on inmigrant cheap manpower, the US cannot just shut down the border and hope that every body will be happy with that. I agree with inmigration control in order to avoid crime and injustice along the south border, a better inmigration policy that allow people to make their lives in the US according to the law.
Now about 9/11... you get what you give... how many countries have the US bomb in the past, lets say, 50 years.... 9/11 was a taste of you own medicine. Many people hate the US GOVERMENT for several reasons and groups like Al Qaeda take adventage of that hate to recruit people and make these awfull attacks. Al Qaeda don't teach hatred towars the US, they just take advantage of it.
I have a theory, 9/11 was a political move... i don't say that the US goverment did the attacks, but i think that some people knew about them and let them happen, certain people in the US got HUGE beneficts with the attacks and the wars after them... its not the first time the US goverment kill americans for their own sake, they did it in Cuba with the sinking of the Maine... some people claim that the same happened in Pearl Harbor and Vietnam... just an excuse to go to war.
So, if the americans wants to get the terrorists, they should start searching in the CIA, the White House, the Pentagon and the Congress and the directive boards of some companies.
Right now the best friend of Bush, Rumsfeld and all those hawks is Bin Laden... without Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda thread, how could they justify the billions of dollars that the US spend in weapons each year.
So is Isolationism a solution for the terrorism thread... NO... the US cannot survive isolated from the rest of the world...
The solution is to work with another countries, not starting wars and making stupid coalitions of the willing, but to work together to improve the quality of live of everybody, not with credits or loans, but with good will, setting a good leadership and being an example for the rest of the nations.
Yea lets isolate ourselves, it'll be a great idea, you know more people will hate us , China, Russia, France, England, No we don't need there help or imports, lets make more enemys,
Yea i love sarcasim.
How can you work with countries who want to see your destruction? You can't. That is like going to a cannibalistic serial killer and helping them de-decorate their house!
Ah....the Advocate is back......
Also, to make this known for others, the only "work" other countries is money! How can you bring a Third World country like Syria, Libya, and Nigeria on work alone? These countries need financial support, and then after that, there will be no profitable return. Case in point: Mexico. Trillions were spent to stabilize their country and stem the flow of immigrants from illegaly entering the country, but the problem got worse. The same can happen with these other countries......Its like saying, "Give us help but don't come helping."
As for what Shinsengumi89 said, sarcasticly, is exactly why we should close up shop and tend to ourselves. We would techonology advance much more rapidly, and our borders will be secure; fly into out airspace, get shot down. Cross the fence, get shot. Try to approach by boat, get sunk and drown. It is that simple. Only China has the balls to challenge us with their military might, others will fall to the wayside. So we don't have to worry about invasion, so who really care if they get pissed because we pulled out of the world stage? They don't want us there in the first place!
I was going to conceed, but these two guys gave me even more reasons to remain. Thanx guys!
well, as a welder, i use a lot of steel. and most of our steel comes from japan (not to mention anime). so while i do think we should have restrictions on border crossings, i think trade shouls stay the same. but it pisses me off is when foreign news reports on how poor a third world country is and how america isnt sending over any support. and when we do, that country takes the money and complains that it isnt enough, then the news tells the rest of the world that america is a bunch of cheap bastards. we need to stop with all this BS, get our sh*t together, and THEN help the rest of the world. but like acyx said, we cant just leave. we need to finish what we start and let other countries deal with their own problems for a change. we should help out if their is a natural disaster or something in the like. We also need some help from other countries sometimes too. i remember back when hurricane katrina hit, mexico gave us a million barrels of oil. they didnt need to do that, no one asked them to do so. they just did it. they also sent over troops to help us. and immigration. if you're gonna come to this country, get a green card. thats all we ask. be fair. let the gov't screw you over like the rest of us.
So his answers is to run away from the problem, stick his head in the sand, and hope it goes away. Yeah, that instantly tells me what type of individual he is.
Thats not entirely accurate (WWI does leap to mind) but easy to explain. We had enough problems internally that needed to get worked out before we stepped out onto the "world stage" so to speak.
On the first part, well thats kinda what happens when everyone thinks you are "the bomb" so to speak. What is the first inclination most people have when a major problem occurs? Its usually to go get help. Who do you go to for help? Usually the person(s) most able to handle the problem (or that are perceived as most able to handle the problem).
Yes we do have the resources. Now tell me what percentage of Americans work to extract and provide the critical life sustaining resources and how much is costs. It is at most in the teens. So that kills the resource argument unless of course you plan to force quite a few more of your fellow Americans to toil in the fields (wasn't freedom one of our founding ideals?). Another issue with resources is that they are finite. Yes even with recycling you cannot maintain a set level of resources. Why? Because it takes more resources to maintain, therefore you are always on the negative side unless you have come up with a way to reverse the law of entropy. A thriving isolated economy? Never heard of any industrialized one that lasted any appreciable amount of time. Hmm defensicve capabilities, ours are certainly top notch but do you have any concept of how much raw material and associated technology is currently imported to enable us to have and maintain those state-of-the-art defenses
I see you brought examples of loss of industry to other countries to the table as an excuse for isolationism. Lets see, I am a major corporation operating in the US but with global ties and teh US goes into an extreme isolationist mode. I basically cut my losses and move to another country to continue my business in order to maintain my profit margin.
Loss of jobs to cheaper labor forces from other countries? Do you know how expensive it is to do American only business in this country? Our cost of living is insane compared to about 85-90% of the rest of the world, and yet you espouse making it even more costly cause I'd love to see your theory on how our economy would fare having to jack up the costs of just about everything consumed in this country by forcing it to be produced here and here alone.
You're going in the wrong direction Liger. Just close off the Middle East from yourself, and let other countries know if ME people enter your country through theirs, you'll shut down trade with them since your people will believe they don't care about the security of their trading partners. This is a simpler solution since it doesn't abandon trade entirely, but punishes those who are inept at finding and locating dangerous people. The portion of the populous that hates you in the ME countries don't directly attack you, but sneak through/hijack flights out of Europe. You only need to bother with OPEC and can ignore the rest of them, place a battleship nearby or something and give their leaders warning that if any religious nuts come after you, you're firing at the town they're from.
Honestly, i know diddly-squat all about socio/economic-politics, especially in America; however, i see no point in America going into 'lockdown,' as you so aptly put it. From what i've gathered here is that your arguements are basically substantiated with Money $$$. And I think there is a lot more behind this than what America can gain from severing its ties; indeed, there is other justification for it.
The 'cut your losses and run' approach i believe is representative of a country that realises its on the fast track into the bad-books and just wants to quit before the going gets too tough. That said, i think we could consider the fact that America no longer sustains the moral high-ground in relation to the rest of the world.
I of course realise that i have no supporting evidence for my arguements/oppionions; thus, they can be disregarded. But because you said we were free to post our opinions i have done so.
Please dont come to me for answers or saying that if i dont have anything constructive to say then shut the f* up. My bit is done for now.
Peace and all that funkadelic jazz.
chibicow.
My basis isn't about money....but about the worlds perception of what America represents; The US has contributed so much to the world, and for countries to commit acts of hatred and atrocities against the US on the basis of religion, millitary presence, and industrial/technological advances. Everybody, keep in mind that the US has had no troops actively involved in the world like now since the Korean and Vietnam wars. When there is an humanitarian crisis, the world looks to the US. When there is a armed conflict, the world looks to the US. And when the US responds to these events, some one dislikes that fact that the US is involved!
So to fix that problem, stop helping those we are helping now, and don't assist any one anymore. That, it turn, will cause those countries to take their frustrations out on the remaining US private business, corporations, and private interests. So we take those back too.If the US is so such a "thorn" in the worlds side, then it is simple for the US to just take itself out of the equation. Let the other countries fend for itself, regardless of the situation they are in.
Your comments are constructive and its cool to voice your opinion. I agree on all that everyone said, but I have to play the Advocate, for others to see just how important the US really is on the World Stage. So you all will have some facts to back your claims up......its your job to convince me that it would be stupid for the US to go on lockdown.
Nope. Close it all off; not just the Middle East, but Europe, Asia, South America, and all point in between! This goes far beyond the Middle East because there is people who hates the US on a Global scale. Whether its financial, politics, religion, or business, they want no US involvement. Sometimes your closest friends are the friends of your enimies! So this is a total thing, not to one particular group or country.
Okay.......lets crack this one.
So far everything you said can be accomplished with regulations. Whether we like it or not. Remember this is about the security of our country.
First off, the workforce in the US is indeed lazy and greedy at best, granted. However, this can be regulated so that everyone can benefit from their perspective jobs. Better healthcare, better wages and pensions for retirement comes to mind. We, as Americans know that in order for your business to succeed is to have your profit higher that the resources you deplete, and you must require these resource cheaper than the product you produce. Once we are able to provide a better workforce, why would we need outside sources? Especially when your outside resources rather see you dead? Once we are able to function without relying on outside sources, we can sustain both econmically and finanically. I think I just repeated myself.......
Lets all keep in mind that I am playing the Devils Avocate?
It'll suck if everyone thinks that I am this weird!
I had to look up that term but I get it now. I thought you were being weird.
of course I could just despise isolationism because in that scenario I would have taken over the 'fair-weather friend' countries by now. "Hi France, round three?" "Sacre bleu, not you blockheads again! Heeeeelp us Britain!"
A lot of the tiny European countries like Bulgaria want to help, by the way. (Probably just to spite the rest of us for mostly ignoring them in EU parliament though.) More of a threat are countries whose leadership are the only ones friendly to US interests, since once they're gone support ends immediately. Only large one I know of is Spain.
I'm being a bit of an advocate myself, since it's not in my own country's best interests for the US to be anywhere near us.