• 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

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.

I disagree with a few of your points.

First, it is our business to do regime change. Not everywhere. Not all at once. In my view, it is justified when a government subjugates its people. We should only do it when it is in our interests.

Second, I don't think we are spreading our form of democracy. We are spreading democracy and they are determining what that looks like. The Iraqi form of democracy looks nothing like ours.

Third, we should only do regime change when the people have the cultural capacity for it.

Fourth, democracy is universal and with enough literacy, anyone can have a democracy.

Finally, they do fight for a democracy, once we have gone in and removed the boot of the dictatorship that was subjugating them. It is not easy what they are building in Iraq.
 
I don't get what you are trying to say here.

Clashing with Islam is inevitable because, like many religions, they seek to bring everyone into their fold, worldwide. Some of them prefer to do it violently.
 
In my view, it is justified when a government subjugates its people. We should only do it when it is in our interests.

Why should we do it when a foreign government subjugates its people? What particular aspects of doing so do you believe would make it in our interests?

We are spreading democracy and they are determining what that looks like. The Iraqi form of democracy looks nothing like ours.

Why should we spread democracy?

Third, we should only do regime change when the people have the cultural capacity for it.

And it is my belief that the people should do their own regime change when they have the cultural capacity for it.

Fourth, democracy is universal and with enough literacy, anyone can have a democracy.

Not if they are unwilling/unable to obtain it for themselves.

Finally, they do fight for a democracy, once we have gone in and removed the boot of the dictatorship that was subjugating them.

See my response to your third point.

To understand my point of view on war and international intervention probably requires that I clarify my personal views on the individual. I believe every person is responsible for his/her own happiness or misery (with the exception of children, but once they are on their own, the same idea applies). I don't believe I can save anyone, nor do I have the desire to. I don't believe America can be the saviors and heroes of the world. I believe that when individuals or groups reach a point that change is deeply desired or necessary, then change happens.
 
Last edited:
Clashing with Islam is inevitable because, like many religions, they seek to bring everyone into their fold, worldwide. Some of them prefer to do it violently.

You suggest that the muslim nation states act in the best interest of their majority religion, and not their own selfishness?

You are contradicting even the most radical Islamists in analysis of role religion plays in Middle-Eastern politics.
 
If Isolationism is:

Controlling the borders, then I'm all for it.

Sending the invading illegals home, then I'm all for it.

Telling Europe to defend themselves since they don't like us, then I'm all for it.

Drilling our own oil, then I'm all for it.

Digging our own coal, then I'm all for it.

Letting the barbaric primitive places of the world fend for themselves, then I'm all for it, so long as the other nations keep their militaries out of those areas as well.

Isolationism can be a good thing. Just think of all the Americans that could have been saved if Wilson had let Europe fight it's own wars, and if LBJ had left Vietnam alone.

So long as the United States retains the strength to turn the rest of the planet into a glazed donut, and otherwise be able to protect our freedoms, the rest of the world can and should go to hell without us.
 
If Isolationism is:

Controlling the borders, then I'm all for it.

Sending the invading illegals home, then I'm all for it.

Telling Europe to defend themselves since they don't like us, then I'm all for it.

Drilling our own oil, then I'm all for it.

Digging our own coal, then I'm all for it.

Letting the barbaric primitive places of the world fend for themselves, then I'm all for it, so long as the other nations keep their militaries out of those areas as well.

Isolationism can be a good thing. Just think of all the Americans that could have been saved if Wilson had let Europe fight it's own wars, and if LBJ had left Vietnam alone.

So long as the United States retains the strength to turn the rest of the planet into a glazed donut, and otherwise be able to protect our freedoms, the rest of the world can and should go to hell without us.


You're Swiss aren't you, just judging by the neutrality of your foreign policy.
 
Why should we do it when a foreign government subjugates its people?

So we can promote human rights.

What particular aspects of doing so do you believe would make it in our interests?

I'm sure that would change case by case. As far Iraq goes, it is because of their oil and the fact that the surrounding countries are autocratic as well. They will set an example.

Why should we spread democracy?

Democracy because it is the best system of government for allowing people to express their self-determination.

We spread democracy because we have the capability. Because we can.

And it is my belief that the people should do their own regime change when they have the cultural capacity for it.

Not if they are unwilling/unable to obtain it for themselves.

Most certainly if they are unable to obtain it for themselves.


To understand my point of view on war and international intervention probably requires that I clarify my personal views on the individual. I believe every person is responsible for his/her own happiness or misery (with the exception of children, but once they are on their own, the same idea applies).

I totally agree.

I don't believe I can save anyone, nor do I have the desire to. I don't believe America can be the saviors and heroes of the world. I believe that when individuals or groups reach a point that change is deeply desired or necessary, then change happens.

I believe I can save people and I have. It is an expression of selflessness and generosity. America can certainly help save the world. We have in the past and we will continue to do so. I think some people are so under the boot that they cannot free themselves, when it is deeply desired. We can help them.
 
You're Swiss aren't you, just judging by the neutrality of your foreign policy.

My foreign policy doesn't show any neutrality.

When the US walks off of Europe, the French will be forced to learn Russian.

That's a damn good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Not to mention the fact that the US military is propping up the Euro. If western Europe had to bear the full cost of it's defense, it's marginal economy would crash and burn. Which will serve those ungrateful bastards justice.
 
Last edited:
My foreign policy doesn't show any neutrality.

When the US walks off of Europe, the French will be forced to learn Russian.

That's a damn good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Not to mention the fact that the US military is propping up the Euro. If western Europe had to bear the full cost of it's defense, it's marginal economy would crash and burn. Which will serve those ungrateful bastards justice.

You're pretty funny.
 
I'm not so sure we have added to the 'greater good of the world' since WWII.

It's called "winning the Cold War".

Look it up.

If we'd lost, the USSR, with it's gulags and opression, would have been the model for the future.
 
A survey taken by the Pew Research center for the People & the Press revealed that a growing number of Americans are favor the United States' disengaging from international affairs. The Associated Press reported:



The Associated Press: Poll: Isolationism soars among Americans

The entire report can be found at: http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/569.pdf

I've always, basically, been an isolationist. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in the rest of the world. It's just that I think that America, politically, should be more like Switzerland.
 
On the other hand, the U.S.'s interventionism in the middle east fed local sympathies against the U.S. It's questionable how successful their recruiting would have been without our ineptitude feeding it.

The US coulnd't not intervene in the Middle East, not when the Middle East, with it's warm water and all that oil was the prize the Soviets were seeking. Losing the ME would have lost the Cold War for the US, pure and simple.
 
So we can promote human rights.



I'm sure that would change case by case. As far Iraq goes, it is because of their oil and the fact that the surrounding countries are autocratic as well. They will set an example.



Democracy because it is the best system of government for allowing people to express their self-determination.

We spread democracy because we have the capability. Because we can.



Most certainly if they are unable to obtain it for themselves.




I totally agree.



I believe I can save people and I have. It is an expression of selflessness and generosity. America can certainly help save the world. We have in the past and we will continue to do so. I think some people are so under the boot that they cannot free themselves, when it is deeply desired. We can help them.

It appears we stand almost directly opposite each other. Fair enough.:)
 
I would like to think this is true, but just allow one attack, here or elsewhere, and we will be right back in the lead.

However, if this does indeed catch on, this would be wonderful for this country, we really need to focus on our debt, our falling dollar, and our own major problems, as they are many!
 
Last edited:
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.

You mean we gave arms and funds to people opposed to the Soviet invasion of their homeland. That some mercenaries were also beneficiaries of our largess is irrelevant. The intent and actual outcome was to bleed the Soviets heavily.

If we'd allowed Gorbachev, Nobel Peace Prize Winner, to succeed in taking Afghanistan, his troops on the Iranian souther border would have dangerously altered the fragile balance of power in the Middle East.

The US stopped the Soviet takeover of Afghanistan and thereby dealt a fatal blow to the Soviet Union.
 
I disagree. The Taliban may have been considered a government, but the Taliban didn't attack us.

Wrong.

The Taliban appointed Osama bin Laden as their Commander in Chief of all Taliban armed forces one month before September 11, 2001. His act of war was the Taliban's act of war, which means it was Afghanistan's act of war.
 
That doesn't mean I'm not interested in the rest of the world. It's just that I think that America, politically, should be more like Switzerland.

The Swiss government is trying really really hard to change that.;)
 
"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.

We didn't try it when we most needed it.

Wilson should have minded our business, not England's, and then there wouldn't have been a WWII.
 
A survey taken by the Pew Research center for the People & the Press revealed that a growing number of Americans are favor the United States' disengaging from international affairs. The Associated Press reported:



The Associated Press: Poll: Isolationism soars among Americans

The entire report can be found at: http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/569.pdf

The U.S. is practically the founder of modern neo-liberalism and is at the helm of practically all global governance enterprises: the UN, the WHO, the WTO, the IMF, etc. The political and financial elites want globalization to go ahead as much as possible. The U.S. will never return to isolationism unless it suffers a full collapse... the people in power and behind the scenes will never allow it.

We may see a bit of a retraction in the coming decade to compensate for domestic issues, but that will by no means bring complete isolation. Those days have gone bye bye.
 
Why should we do it when a foreign government subjugates its people? What particular aspects of doing so do you believe would make it in our interests?

We should do it when it's to our advantage to do it, and only when it's to our advantage. Since the enemy nation seized it's power by force and not by the will of the people, they have no natural claim to rule and can be replaced by anyone weilding more effective force in opposition.

The great virtue of the United States is that we don't want to own those ****holes, and in both Iraq and Afghanland our goals have always been to establish a native democratic republic. Iraq had the background to make it reasonably successful fairly soon. Afghanland is a tougher nut, but who's to say it's impossible?

Why should we spread democracy?

Because democratic nations that retain their democratic freedoms are much more likely to trade goods with the world, not artillery shells.

And it is my belief that the people should do their own regime change when they have the cultural capacity for it.

And if it wasn't for the Russians and the Americans, how would Germany have gotten rid of the Nazis? If it wasn't for GW Bush, how were the Iraqi's going to get rid of Saddam Hussein? If it wasn't for Reagan, how was Eastern Europe going to get rid of Gorbachev?
 
It appears we stand almost directly opposite each other. Fair enough.:)

Oh, I like debating with you, lizzie!! No flailing about trying to change each others minds. Just a matter of fact exchange about what we believe, and then a shrug since we aren't seeing eye to eye on this. I love it!
 
I disagree with a few of your points.

First, it is our business to do regime change. Not everywhere. Not all at once. In my view, it is justified when a government subjugates its people. We should only do it when it is in our interests.

Second, I don't think we are spreading our form of democracy. We are spreading democracy and they are determining what that looks like. The Iraqi form of democracy looks nothing like ours.

Third, we should only do regime change when the people have the cultural capacity for it.

Fourth, democracy is universal and with enough literacy, anyone can have a democracy.

Finally, they do fight for a democracy, once we have gone in and removed the boot of the dictatorship that was subjugating them. It is not easy what they are building in Iraq.

It should be up to them to decide when regime change is justified, what type of goverment they want (whether it be democracy or otherwise), and up to them to overthrow their own government. It says this in the Declaration of Independence:
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
 
Last edited:
It's called "winning the Cold War".

Look it up.

If we'd lost, the USSR, with it's gulags and opression, would have been the model for the future.
I can't believe people still follow that ideology. This line of thinking right here has caused the biggest problems in the world for most of the last 60 years. This was the reasoning for our intervention in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Cuba, and many other places. Intervention that in almost every case resulted in total disaster. Meanwhile, Communism doesn't work and the Soviet Union would have collapsed on its own.

Wrong.

The Taliban appointed Osama bin Laden as their Commander in Chief of all Taliban armed forces one month before September 11, 2001. His act of war was the Taliban's act of war, which means it was Afghanistan's act of war.

I'm sorry, I need to see a link supporting this or I call :bs
 
Back
Top Bottom