USMC the Almighty
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,070
I can't beleive I agree with you on something
Everyone's bound to get it right once in a while...
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Should the US adopt a policy of isolationism?
- Thread starter invest07
- Start date
Everyone's bound to get it right once in a while...
Werbung:
I know, it was your first time. I felt need to support you in case you try again to get it right
USMC the Almighty
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,070
I know, it was your first time. I felt need to support you in case you try again to get it right
Thanks, but I was actually referring to you.
JavaBlack
Well-Known Member
...
That's part of the reason our reputation is falling apart.
Perhaps we should just be more careful about the treaties we sign. Some are actually worthy.
The world might thank us for that. But what exactly does it mean? Are we really the world leader now? It seems more we are just the power necessary to make or break an international effort.
What is our fair share? And what if that fair share is not enough to ensure that what we want to do is done?
Even to the point of allowing our allies to fall to enemies? That doesn't seem like it would be in our best interests.
We don't give foreign aid as a gesture of friendship. We do it to create stability. Such limitations would cause a sharp decline in third world development and create more emergencies to aid in.
As lousy as the UN is, I don't think it is in our interests to cut ourselves off from the rest of the world in this manner. Rather we should work to reform the UN or create a new international organization to address the flaws.
Possibly yes. But I'd need more information. What areas are we currently in that we can pull back from without creating disaster?
And what if this leads to NK attacking Japan or for Israel to be destroyed? It seems that if we are to remove our military, it should be a gradual scaling back combined with an effort to train the countries we are leaving to take over.
We never do. We are the only country that ignores whatever treaties we feel like ignoring.
That's part of the reason our reputation is falling apart.
Perhaps we should just be more careful about the treaties we sign. Some are actually worthy.
invest07
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 550
The 8 points of my original post would not result in strict isolationism. They would result in a reduced presence on the world stage.
I think we should go from being a "SuperPower" to being only a "Power".
It would be impossible for us to withdraw from the world economy so none of my posts includes economic isolations.
One of the questions asked was "what is our fair share". My opinion is that this topic should be the focus of a national debate. Where there is concensus, that is our fair share. And our fair share may change in the future.
One of the concerns of withdrawing troops is that this may remove deterrence from common enemies. I am not suggesting we withdraw immediately. I am suggesting that some we protect should take over their own protection. Many of the protected (Germany) hate us anyway. And many who we have protected in the past (we bailed out France twice) spit on us every chance they get. Isn't 60 tears enough time for Germany and Japan to learn to defend themselves?
My opinion is that military bases scattered all over the globe may not be needed in today's fast response military. If the locals take over their own defense and we have an obligation to come to their defense (by treaty) then our local base should be closed and preparations for rapid response replace the base.
There are hot spots which may requires military bases on foreign soil. Korea and Taiwan come to mind. If those are required, they should remain open. It is not my intention to leave allies unprotected. It is my intention that the ally should defend themselves as much as possible with our rapid response assistance.
As to the UN, this is as worthless an organization as has ever been founded. We need to be a member but we don't need to pay 1/3 of the bills. And we should get all those diplomats off our soil and let someone else deal with them. (Any New Yorkers agree with this?)
There have been certain countries with which we have traditional ties of friendship and common interests. The UK, Israel, Australia, Liberia, Quatar, Japan, several W European countries.
The exact purpose of foreign aid should be a topic for national debate. And when we offer assistance to others, that assistance should meet the criteria established by the national debate.
Our national sovereignity is under attack from several directions. NAFTA, lax enforcement of border security, the proposed North American Union, the SPP, and other aspects of the NeoCon philosophy are all designed to surrender a portion of our national sovereignity. And many in the Democrat Party agree with this diminution.
Our national sovereignity is also under attack from the UN. The UN is actively looking for ways to control individual countries' courts (substituting a world court) and instituting world wide taxation. (One example is at this web site: carbontax.org). Gore is a huge supporter of a world wide carbon tax paid to the UN.
Reducing our military presence and concentrating on rapid response seem to be a reasonable way to save US taxpayer dollars without sacrificing actual security. And the rapid response aspect would enable us to respond to disasters more effectively.
I don't believe strict isolationism is workable. But I do think our presence on the world stage could and should be diminished. And I don't think this should be debated solely by our elected officials. We, the people, should have some input. I'm not sure how to organize a national deabte so as to fairly represent citizens but it should be possible if there is a national will.
I've thrown 8 points out on the table for discussion. Anyone have any other points that should be considered under this topic?
I think we should go from being a "SuperPower" to being only a "Power".
It would be impossible for us to withdraw from the world economy so none of my posts includes economic isolations.
One of the questions asked was "what is our fair share". My opinion is that this topic should be the focus of a national debate. Where there is concensus, that is our fair share. And our fair share may change in the future.
One of the concerns of withdrawing troops is that this may remove deterrence from common enemies. I am not suggesting we withdraw immediately. I am suggesting that some we protect should take over their own protection. Many of the protected (Germany) hate us anyway. And many who we have protected in the past (we bailed out France twice) spit on us every chance they get. Isn't 60 tears enough time for Germany and Japan to learn to defend themselves?
My opinion is that military bases scattered all over the globe may not be needed in today's fast response military. If the locals take over their own defense and we have an obligation to come to their defense (by treaty) then our local base should be closed and preparations for rapid response replace the base.
There are hot spots which may requires military bases on foreign soil. Korea and Taiwan come to mind. If those are required, they should remain open. It is not my intention to leave allies unprotected. It is my intention that the ally should defend themselves as much as possible with our rapid response assistance.
As to the UN, this is as worthless an organization as has ever been founded. We need to be a member but we don't need to pay 1/3 of the bills. And we should get all those diplomats off our soil and let someone else deal with them. (Any New Yorkers agree with this?)
There have been certain countries with which we have traditional ties of friendship and common interests. The UK, Israel, Australia, Liberia, Quatar, Japan, several W European countries.
The exact purpose of foreign aid should be a topic for national debate. And when we offer assistance to others, that assistance should meet the criteria established by the national debate.
Our national sovereignity is under attack from several directions. NAFTA, lax enforcement of border security, the proposed North American Union, the SPP, and other aspects of the NeoCon philosophy are all designed to surrender a portion of our national sovereignity. And many in the Democrat Party agree with this diminution.
Our national sovereignity is also under attack from the UN. The UN is actively looking for ways to control individual countries' courts (substituting a world court) and instituting world wide taxation. (One example is at this web site: carbontax.org). Gore is a huge supporter of a world wide carbon tax paid to the UN.
Reducing our military presence and concentrating on rapid response seem to be a reasonable way to save US taxpayer dollars without sacrificing actual security. And the rapid response aspect would enable us to respond to disasters more effectively.
I don't believe strict isolationism is workable. But I do think our presence on the world stage could and should be diminished. And I don't think this should be debated solely by our elected officials. We, the people, should have some input. I'm not sure how to organize a national deabte so as to fairly represent citizens but it should be possible if there is a national will.
I've thrown 8 points out on the table for discussion. Anyone have any other points that should be considered under this topic?
Werbung:
invest07
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 550
Wikipedia
I consider this a questionable source for information. The articles are not peer reviewed and some articles I have read seem to be as much opinion as fact. Articles are written by independent, unpaid contributors who may not be credentialed in the topic. If you get your info from Wikipedia, I would strongly suggest verification from another source.
On the other hand, Wikipedia is an excellent source for graphic, photos, charts and illustrations. These are royalty free and you can copy and use one of these without becoming a pirate.
I consider this a questionable source for information. The articles are not peer reviewed and some articles I have read seem to be as much opinion as fact. Articles are written by independent, unpaid contributors who may not be credentialed in the topic. If you get your info from Wikipedia, I would strongly suggest verification from another source.
On the other hand, Wikipedia is an excellent source for graphic, photos, charts and illustrations. These are royalty free and you can copy and use one of these without becoming a pirate.
Similar threads
