• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

which do you prefer?

What should we be?

  • Isolationist

    Votes: 4 40.0%
  • World Police

    Votes: 6 60.0%

  • Total voters
    10

kamino

Active member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
320
Reaction score
79
Location
Silverdale, Wa.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Would you rather the U.S. continue playing the role of world police or gradually take a stance of isolationist?
 
Re: which to you prefere?

While I don't think either extreme is necessary, we've spent far too much time playing world police and pissed off most of our neighbors doing it, we need to be more concerned with our own borders and less with everyone else's. That doesn't mean that if people need help and come to us for help, that we cannot render it, but running around sticking our nose into everyone else's troubles has done nothing to strengthen our own nation.
 
Re: which to you prefere?

Would you rather the U.S. continue playing the role of world police or gradually take a stance of isolationist?

Yours is a simplistic notion and your poll poses a false dichotomy.

The question is, 'will we exert any influence on the matters in this world that will effect us or not?'

Will we use our power for good or not?

By affecting matters in the early stages we can and do prevent wars.

We are the only nation on Earth strong enough and willing to stand for the rights of others as well as ourselves.
 
Would you rather the U.S. continue playing the role of world police or gradually take a stance of isolationist?

If I had to pick an extreme, I'd vote for Team America every time :cool:
 
Re: which to you prefere?

While I don't think either extreme is necessary....
There are Elvis people and there are Beatles people. Now Elvis people can like the Beatles and Beatles people can like Elvis, but it's imposable to like Elvis and the Beatles equally and at some point you have to make a choice.

It's just a way to find out where one stands, not assert that extremes are the only potabilities.
 
I don't think we have to turn to isolationism. But I do think we should quit being the world's police. People should solve their own problems, but that doesn't mean we would have nothing to do with them. Trade and exchange is good, but expending our resources and military for something that is not in defense of America I think is maybe a bit too far. Friends with all, entangling treaties with none.
 
Why isolationism rather than noninterventionism? Trade with all, alliances with none.
 
With the fall of the Russians, they're imperialist socialist ideaology, we became what we feared the most, the Russians.

We are going to fall just like the russians fell, bankrupt.
 
Quote(We are going to fall just like the russians fell, bankrupt.)

The Western World is already Bankrupt,

However unlike the Russians we are not yet morally Bankrupt,
 
Quote(We are going to fall just like the russians fell, bankrupt.)

The Western World is already Bankrupt,

However unlike the Russians we are not yet morally Bankrupt,
Unfortunately, I get the impression that Russia is more cultured, more moral than some of Europe right now.
 
I'd rather carry the big stick, than trust somebody else with it.
 
Quote(We are going to fall just like the russians fell, bankrupt.)

The Western World is already Bankrupt,

However unlike the Russians we are not yet morally Bankrupt,

Perhaps not by your standards...
 
Would you rather the U.S. continue playing the role of world police or gradually take a stance of isolationist?

Why either or? You dont need to be isolationist in order to refrain from creating misery and war around the world.
 
just solid policy and reform, eh?

Thats my preference for everyone..
 
Last edited:
I think we should be somewhere in between, not 'policeing' the world, but not ignoring it either.
 
Yet another poll that could have been good, but was not, so, another no vote.

Why can't the UN, with a ton of reform, of course, become the world's policeman ??

If it must be on us, then, where is the pay ??
Or is this reform impossible as the world is not up to it....due to ignorance and intolerance...
Isolation ? for those with double digit IQs, and no memory..
World policeman ? we are not up to it....
 
Why can't the UN, with a ton of reform, of course, become the world's policeman ??

QUOTE]

It would need reform in a way that there are no veto's when it comes to keeping a naughty country on probation.
 
Would you rather the U.S. continue playing the role of world police or gradually take a stance of isolationist?

"Isolationist" is an improper word to use. The correct word is "neutral."

"Isolationist" implies that a country would totally separate itself in all things, including trade. This of course is utterly stupid.

But I am a strong believer in being neutral. I believe in free trade and friendship with all nations that are willing. I also believe that we should not interfere with the internal affairs of other nations and mind our own business.

Look at Switzerland. They don't meddle into world affairs. They have a very strong defense on a very small budget. They have not been successfully invaded in at least the last 400 years. Terrorists never bother Switzerland. And nobody hates Switzerland.
 
Back
Top Bottom