jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (6 posts)

Should the United States take an isolationism approach to world affairs?

  1. davidlivermore profile image97
    davidlivermoreposted 2 years ago

    Should the United States take an isolationism approach to world affairs?

    So many question on why the United States does and does not take action in various areas.  The US was isolated from world affairs at some point. Should they take that stance again?  Why or why not?

  2. Thief12 profile image91
    Thief12posted 2 years ago

    More than a question of intervening or not, I would say it's a question of purposes and consistency. What's the purpose of the US intervening in this or that? More often than not, the answer is money, strategy, and geopolitical power, instead of a true desire to help or solve a crisis. Which takes me to the issue of consistency. Because of the above, there is no consistency in where or why the US intervenes. Sadly, since many times the purpose is economic, they intervene only when and where it's convenient for them and not when or where it's really needed.

    But to answer the question, no, I don't think the US - or any country - should be isolated from the world community, but the interventions and/or help should come out of goodwill and for the right reasons, while also giving each country enough space and free will to be themselves and solve their own issues the way they see fit.

    Ahhh, dreams......

  3. RonElFran profile image99
    RonElFranposted 2 years ago

    The US tried isolationism in the 20th century. The result was two world wars that we couldn't avoid becoming involved in. The fact is the US is the 800-lb gorilla on the world stage, and it cannot isolate itself from what happens in the rest of the world, however much it might try. And after the experiences of the last century, we no longer try. In a world where terrorists and rogue states have the capacity and the desire to visit destruction on us right here in this country, there are few voices today crying out for a head-in-the-sand approach to foreign policy.

    BTW, I very much disagree with those who claim the US intervenes in other countries in order to profit financially. As huge as the US economy is, the contribution of the resources of any country the US might be tempted to intervene in would literally hardly be noticed. We are even close to being net exporters of petroleum, which many claim as the motive behind US activities in the Middle East.

    Much more than money, what the US seeks through its foreign policy is stability rather than political upheaval. That has sometimes put us in the position of supporting repressive regimes when it seemed the alternative would foment greater instability or uncertainty. On the other hand, as our current policy toward Syria shows, when it's clear that the policies of the regime in power will in themselves cause political instability, the US may support dissident political movements or even armed rebels.

    Bottom line: at this point in history US isolationism is simply not an option.

    1. Thief12 profile image91
      Thief12posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      According to EIA, US is #1 in oil prod (with 13 million bpd), but not even in the Top 40 in exporters. Plus they are #1 in oil consumption (with close to 20 million bpd), so they use most of the oil they produce and still fall short.

    2. IslandBites profile image87
      IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Really? Are you that naive? Stability? How's that worked for you so far? LOL

  4. bradmasterOCcal profile image30
    bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years ago

    No, but the US should carefully evaluate their reasons for their involvement in foreign matters, and once a decision is made to get involved they must make a commitment.to succeeding in their mission.

    This has not been the case for most of the involvements in foreign matters for the US in the last one hundred years.

 
working