• 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!

Poll: Isolationism soars among Americans

EpicDude86 said:
Africa is Europe's problem. How come they get to go create a mess of almost an entire continent, and get to leave and act like nothing happened?
Click to expand...

Because going back might actually require Europe to take responsibility and acknowledge what they have done.
Not even just Africa. Most of the world Europe has played around with
 
Last edited:
Charles Martel said:
The best defense is a good offense, Lizzie.
Click to expand...

We should have the best offensive capabilities money can buy, but those capabilities should only be used for war, not peace-keeping, not nation-building, and not chasing criminal gangs in the desert, many of whom have the support of the very people we think we are helping.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The problem isn't that one's suggesting that "blowback" contributed to the terrorist attack. That is not an unreasonable suggestion. Policies can provoke favorable and unfavorable reactions. Of course, foreign policy of any state must consider tradeoffs. Foreign policy is not, and cannot be risk-free, as the world is not risk-free.

The problem lies with the argument that "blowback" was solely or almost completely responsible for the outcome. The latter argument--Ron Paul's, the argument from the isolationist perspective, etc.--is naive and inaccurate. It ignores Al Qaeda's nature as a revolutionary movement, its ideology and its objectives. Yet, Al Qaeda's nature, ideology and objectives run well beyond avenging that terrorist organization's expressed grievances (actual or perceptual) concerning U.S. policy. Indeed, if that were not the case, then Osama Bin Laden would never have included rationalizations that ran far afield of U.S. foreign policy in his "Letter to America," much less demanded that the U.S. ultimately convert to Islam (his radical interpretation, of course).
Click to expand...

I don't think you're going back far enough. We were messing around in Afghanistan before Al Qaeda or the Taliban ever existed. Just like in Iraq, we gave arms and funds to some of the same people who ended up attacking us later.
 
lizzie said:
We should have the best offensive capabilities money can buy, but those capabilities should only be used for war, not peace-keeping, not nation-building, and not chasing criminal gangs in the desert, many of whom have the support of the very people we think we are helping.
Click to expand...

Those capabilities were used to rebuild Europe, stand in the Soviets way, and very much active in a peace keeping roll. Our United States Navy steams up and down the globe in peace-keeping endeavors(reflagging of Kuwaiti oil tankers a prime example).

And you're confused. Al-Qaeda nor the Taliban are criminal gangs. The Khobar towers, USS Cole, and 9-11 were acts of war. Furthermore, the War Powers Act is engaged in both theatres.

Finally, your 'chasing' defintion above...means that someone is running. And it's a tad difficult to plan your next attack on American soil or against American interests when yer runnin for your life. Remember that when discussing offense and defense.
 
Charles Martel said:
And you're confused. Al-Qaeda nor the Taliban are criminal gangs. The Khobar towers, USS Cole, and 9-11 were acts of war. Furthermore, the War Powers Act is engaged in both theatres.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The Taliban may have been considered a government, but the Taliban didn't attack us. Al Qaeda is a multinational criminal organization more similar to the mafia than to a government entity. 9/11 was not an act of war, it was terrorism. If the Yakuza or some Columbian drug cartel had hijacked those planes would we be trying to topple the local government? Maybe, if they weren't willing to cooperate. At that point it became a war against the Afghan government who refused to allow us in. But if the Taliban had said "sure, we'll help you get rid of Al Qaeda" there would have been no war necessary to deal with the terrorist group. And there are many such groups in various nations around the world, including ours. Al Capone could have hijacked a plane as easily as Al Qaeda if he really wanted to.
 
nerv14 said:
Very interesting. I agree in that America starts alot of problems, but I think it is kind of greedy of Americans to be willing to sacrifice the greater good of the world to just avoid the problems out there.

America should possible interfere less in the world overall but America certainly shouldn't just "mind its own business." If anything, the problem is that we only interfere in the world to get gains for our own, when we should be concerned with interfering, if it will help the world as a whole.
Click to expand...
Total horse****, Americans may get involved in a lot of problems, but we don't start any more problems than anyone else.
 
American said:
Total horse****, Americans may get involved in a lot of problems, but we don't start any more problems than anyone else.
Click to expand...

lol since we intervene more, we just have statistically a higher chance of causing more problems then other people :D

this is true even if we do fix more problems then other nations
 
Laila said:
Because going back might actually require Europe to take responsibility and acknowledge what they have done.
Not even just Africa. Most of the world Europe has played around with
Click to expand...

We turned out alright. :lol:


We can't hold them responsible for **** that they can't fix and is long gone, however Africa is their issue and they should do more than we are doing. We don't even belong there.
 
Charles Martel said:
And you're confused. Al-Qaeda nor the Taliban are criminal gangs. The Khobar towers, USS Cole, and 9-11 were acts of war. Furthermore, the War Powers Act is engaged in both theatres.
Click to expand...

Criminal according to whose law?
 
Tsunami said:
I disagree. The Taliban may have been considered a government, but the Taliban didn't attack us.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't. When we asked if they'd turn Bin Laden over to us for obvious reasons, they refused. We have a War Powers Act engaged with specific language, the President can make war on anyone harboring terrorists as well and....well...there you have it.

Al Qaeda is a multinational criminal organization more similar to the mafia than to a government entity.
Click to expand...

The Mafia are here. Many American citizens. Not attacking United States warships or embassies, not flying planes into the Pentagon, not capturing and torturing US soldiers, your analogy is unsound, imo.

9/11 was not an act of war, it was terrorism.
Click to expand...

The United States Congress considered it an act of war, have you read the Authorization? Got stuff like "Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;", and "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons" and stuff like that you wouldn't see used against a mafia.

If the Yakuza or some Columbian drug cartel had hijacked those planes would we be trying to topple the local government?
Click to expand...

Yes. If these two organizations that haven't declared war on the US as al-Qaeda has hijacked planes and we asked the Colombian government to turn over these perps and they refused? That's a War Powers Act by Congress waiting to happen. Should this Yakuza or drug cartel also have been trying to start a war for years, had previously attacked a US Warship, had previously killed embassy personnel...we would be remiss NOT to declare open hostilities, we'd be foolish to NOT wake up and consider these acts of war.

But if the Taliban had said "sure, we'll help you get rid of Al Qaeda" there would have been no war necessary to deal with the terrorist group.
Click to expand...

Correct, there would be no war necessary. But they didn't so...war necesssary...right?

Al Capone could have hijacked a plane as easily as Al Qaeda if he really wanted to.
Click to expand...

Al Capone was a US citizen! I don't see your analogy at all here. You'd support sending the troops in after an al-Qaeda harbored by the Taliban correct? That is saying you favor the US military being used to chase criminals. Repsonsible for collecting data or evidence on the battlefield as well? Must we read them rights if they're merely criminals, are they presumed innocent?

Madness!
 
Welcome to the Whigs, Arch Enemy! Glad to have you. That 5k rank looks pretty cool! (I did the rank banners)
 
lizzie said:
We should have the best offensive capabilities money can buy, but those capabilities should only be used for war, not peace-keeping, not nation-building, and not chasing criminal gangs in the desert, many of whom have the support of the very people we think we are helping.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Our military has strengths for both the first half and second half of a war. First half with line combat troops, armor, artillery, air. Second half with COIN, Intel, PRTs. According to Thomas Barnett, we should split the military into a combat force (for first half) and a "SysAdmin" force for second half reconstruction/regime change/counterinsurgency work. If we set our minds to it, we will get quite competent, more so than we are today and we are doing pretty good.
 
Councilman said:
Isn't it easy for all of the Anti-American Socialists/Communists blame & America firsters to want to bury their empty heads in the sand.

The very best thing you can do to help Obama lend aid and comfort to the enemy is do nothing and allow Obama to get his way and allow infiltrators to continue to cross our borders unchecked, ignore terrorist attacks (Ft, Hood), and announce our military plans to the enemy. All the time doing nothing while they build their forces and power and eventually hit us here at home again.

Of course Obama the do nothing right yet imbecile can always use his favorite excuse for everything he fouls up and blame Bush but that's getting plenty damn old.

Isolationism was preached by a lot of people when the first Nation run by NAZIs were taking over Europe before we entered WWII, imagine what it would be like had we done as they wanted us to do. You'd be speaking German and saluting a different Socialist/Communist government.
Click to expand...

"conservative" says it all
This "liberal", in order to refute these arguments says, that isolation never has worked in the past and will not work in the future.
Our nation must learn to respect others, as difficult as this may be.
 
reefedjib said:
Welcome to the Whigs, Arch Enemy! Glad to have you. That 5k rank looks pretty cool! (I did the rank banners)
Click to expand...

It does look pretty cool! I found the Modern Whigs to have the best platform for me. I take supporting the, and the family of, military men and women very seriously.
:2wave:
 
Charles Martel said:
The United States Congress considered it an act of war, have you read the Authorization? Got stuff like "Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;", and "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons" and stuff like that you wouldn't see used against a mafia.
Click to expand...
Everyone makes mistakes.
Correct, there would be no war necessary. But they didn't so...war necesssary...right?
Click to expand...
War necesssary because of the Taliban's refusal, not because of the terrorist attack.
Al Capone was a US citizen! I don't see your analogy at all here. You'd support sending the troops in after an al-Qaeda harbored by the Taliban correct? That is saying you favor the US military being used to chase criminals. Repsonsible for collecting data or evidence on the battlefield as well? Must we read them rights if they're merely criminals, are they presumed innocent?
Click to expand...
If Al Capone flew a plane into the Eiffel Tower would it have been an act of war? The point was there are many organizations around the world capable of such an attack that are not government organizations. When the IRA blows up a bus it is not an act of war, it is terrorism. Al Qaeda is not an army, it is a cult or criminal organization. And you seem to agree that it is stupid to declare war on criminals.
 
Tsunami said:
War necesssary because of the Taliban's refusal, not because of the terrorist attack.
Click to expand...
Good point
If Al Capone flew a plane into the Eiffel Tower would it have been an act of war? The point was there are many organizations around the world capable of such an attack that are not government organizations. When the IRA blows up a bus it is not an act of war, it is terrorism. Al Qaeda is not an army, it is a cult or criminal organization. And you seem to agree that it is stupid to declare war on criminals.
Click to expand...

al-Qa'ida isn't even a cult or a criminal organization, or it's not anymore. al-Qa'ida is (I'm so going to get hell for making this comparison) as structural as the Underground Railroad; it's a series of check-points where any Radical Jihadist can fight the West (it also takes cash, cheque, or pay-pal for anybody willing to fund violent jihad).

Today we prefer to consider al-Qa'ida to be "geographically isolated". The council that used to be clear as day is barely even part of this world anymore, and we see former detainees being scratched out of the bottom of the barrel to play the role of P.R. man
 
Dutch said:
Personally, I'm fed up with the constant wars and interventions around the world we are involved in. We've had some 30,000 troops guarding the Korean border for something like 50 years while at the same time we can't guard our own. Haven't the past 2000 years of history taught you anything?? 300,000 troops cannot stop man from securing a better life, as do the Mexicans in our nation.., is the solution to make our nation less desirable ?? We have troops and military bases on every continent in the world and for what? I say finish the fracas in Afghanistan, bring ubl's head home on a stick and be done with it.This is what the Romans would do.. Empire is simply too expensive at a time when we aren't sure if our bridges will last or the simple fact we have no idea who or what is simply skipping across our border. Enough is enough, it's obscene already.
Click to expand...

I am not in favor of these wars, peaceful intervention(without any religion) is more effective, but takes a lot more time.
We must be patient.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Step 1: Build Walls and Border-stations 360 degrees around the nation, put guns in them, put men on guns.
Step 2: Switch armed forces to Defense, at home and in Allied nations only.
Step 3: Set up the BIG, big guns.
Step 4: ???????
Step 5. Profit!


Trade for what we need, sell what others want, be as self sufficient as possible, and **** everyone but our closest allies.
Click to expand...

The Chinese tried this a few years back; but they were lacking the "big guns".
Allies?
Do we really have any allies?
Do we have any history books?
 
Tsunami said:
I'm not so sure we have added to the 'greater good of the world' since WWII. Vietnam was a disaster, Korea is still unresolved, and Iraq and Afghanistan were made worse by our interference. I'm not an isolationist in the economic sense, but I certainly favor the non-interventionist foreign policy that we had before WWII. I suppose I would have supported stopping Hitler sooner, but not if it led to the preventative wars of the Bush Doctrine. And I don't understand why it is our duty to defend South Korea or Israel or any other nation. If they ask the UN for help like Kuwait did that is one thing, but to keep 30,000 troops in Korea for 60 years is too much.
Click to expand...
I think we have added to the greater good of the the world; if we had used our heads, we could have added much more.
The Vietnam War was a disaster, I agree.
Korea is very much resolved, the Orientals do have much more patience, its a matter of more time until their "Berlin Wall" falls and N. Korea joins E Germany in man's scrap-pile of failed ideas...
Iraq, less Saddam Huissan, cannot be worse...In this case, the Islamics must grow up and accept what they do not like...
The so-called UN should be playing a larger role, what that not their original purpose?
 
reefedjib said:
According to Thomas Barnett, we should split the military into a combat force (for first half) and a "SysAdmin" force for second half reconstruction/regime change/counterinsurgency work. If we set our minds to it, we will get quite competent, more so than we are today and we are doing pretty good.
Click to expand...

In my view, we have no business in regime change of any country unless we are attacked by a country. What we have been doing in the ME is trying to spread our form of democracy, and in my estimation, it will only have a semblance of success while we are still there. Culturally, many people in that region of the world probably aren't capable of managing it without our presence.
That being said, I have no problem with special ops and intelligence being used to take out legitimate terrorist targets, but I object to nation-building and trying to spread our idea of what government should be. I don't think anyone who isn't capable and willing to fight for their own democracy is ready for it.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
It's entirely likely that the events of 9/11 wouldn't have lapped up to our shores if we hadn't meddled so much in the middle east.
Click to expand...

I don't think "meddle" is the right word.
We live in the 19th century and the Islamics seem to want to live in the 6th century.
A clash of philosophies was inevitable.
 
Red_Dave said:
Which preemptive actions could have prevented 9/11? If anything stronger intelligence domestically could have prevented it.
Click to expand...

As with Japan/WW 2, the data(intelligence) was there.
What we lacked was the intelligence to see this.
 
earthworm said:
I don't think "meddle" is the right word.
We live in the 19th century and the Islamics seem to want to live in the 6th century.
A clash of philosophies was inevitable.
Click to expand...

That clash of civilizations theory is complete bull****.
 
An interesting report which actually points out some really contradictory statements that don't necessarily agree with the headline conclusion.

Notice that the peaks in "America First" occur in 1976 and 1993 - both times of economic stress in the US shortly after a major foreign military effort by the US. So this type of response should actually be an expected one. (Page 16) And yet further into the report you see that the majority of people are pro-active against international threats, feel that the US should take matters into its own hands regardless of allies or UN opinions, and concentrate on protecting US jobs and security.

The biggest thing in the report that leaps out at me is how often the public's responses are at odds with the Council of Foreign Relation's (CFR) who put the report together. Whenever the sponsoring group is at odds with the findings you will get some really strange results and interpretations. This is a natural off-shoot of any statistical analysis applied to human interactions. When you are trying to interpret data that you just can't understand, you have a hard time making any sense of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom