Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Isolation or Intervention.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Isolation or Intervention.

    This thread was inspired by Phebes statement in a reply that she's isolationist in nature... and sick of Britain dragging the USA into foreign wars.

    Despite the truth (or not) of the latter part of her comments, i would pose a question regarding the former. Its context is the huge discussion in many threads in this forum, regarding the USA's past and possible future interventions.

    Can members give as much reasoning and comment as they can in defining why they answer a they do. Thanks

    Question...

    Should the USA's foreign policy be MORE interventionist or MORE isolationist in nature than it already is?

    regards

    Gaz

  • #2
    Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post
    Question...

    Should the USA's foreign policy be MORE interventionist or MORE isolationist in nature than it already is?
    Are those my only two choices?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by OmegaStrike View Post
      Are those my only two choices?
      Ummmmm.........what other choices would you like, OmegaStrike??

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by OmegaStrike View Post
        Are those my only two choices?
        Omega mate...

        Lets hear your thoughts!

        Gaz

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post
          Should the USA's foreign policy be MORE interventionist or MORE isolationist in nature than it already is?
          As I said before, I would love the United States to be isolationist, a long, fond dream of American citizens that Woodrow Wilson ran on in his second term (and went to war within a month of being inaugurated), and the desire of many citizens before WWII, until the week that saw Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war all at once.

          HOWEVER, it doesn't work out because the business of America is business, as Calvin Coolidge said, and so we sell war materiel to warring parties, we lend huge amounts of money to warring parties, usually Britain in both cases, and then the enemies sink our ships Atlantic and Pacific and pretty soon, we're in the soup again.

          So our strategy for sixty years has been to take over and prevent the rise of regional hegemons anywhere in the world and basically take over the planet weapons-wise so that these wars can't start up at all.

          It has worked. I hate it, but it IS better than the alternative, another world war.

          Comment


          • #6
            Impossible to qualify that.... given the two parameters GAZ man...ala given the concept of 'realpolitik' as you and i to know it... certainly since the conclusion of the CW.

            Otoh The USA has been a big boy since the Spanish American war and rightly or wrongly, hasn't had much need to be nudged by anybody...granted there have been isolationist periods, in the history, but hell we had that in our own CW. Tain nuting new.

            No GAZ man... i wish i could predict the need for eioher and or but can't.

            Politics while in many ways remaining the same for 2500 years; it's the subtle or not so subtle, you pick, difference and nuance of the tech age of industralisation and the splittling of that atom... that has made the world a precarious place...

            yes yes i ramble i know...yet it's just not cut and dried as an issue for me.

            Like all things i have learned to deal with in my life... it is situationaly dependent and synomous with the threat, that either i or the nation, percieves and wishes to deal with, in the protection of self interests and our allies.

            but hellllllllll who loves ya ole Son.

            b.
            CV

            Comment


            • #7
              Neither, less intervention more prevention. Quit playing the roll that we have so willingly bought into as "World Policeman" Teddy R. Had it right, speak softly and carry a dang big stick.

              HP
              "Ask not what your country can do for you"

              Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

              you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis View Post
                Impossible to qualify that.... given the two parameters GAZ man...ala given the concept of 'realpolitik' as you and i to know it... certainly since the conclusion of the CW.

                Otoh The USA has been a big boy since the Spanish American war and rightly or wrongly, hasn't had much need to be nudged by anybody...granted there have been isolationist periods, in the history, but hell we had that in our own CW. Tain nuting new.

                No GAZ man... i wish i could predict the need for eioher and or but can't.

                Politics while in many ways remaining the same for 2500 years; it's the subtle or not so subtle, you pick, difference and nuance of the tech age of industralisation and the splittling of that atom... that has made the world a precarious place...

                yes yes i ramble i know...yet it's just not cut and dried as an issue for me.

                Like all things i have learned to deal with in my life... it is situationaly dependent and synomous with the threat, that either i or the nation, percieves and wishes to deal with, in the protection of self interests and our allies.

                but hellllllllll who loves ya ole Son.

                b.
                CV
                I'll add a third for you old friend!...

                Should the USA's foreign policy be MORE interventionist or MORE isolationist in nature than it already is, in terms of how YOU see its success or failure in the last 40 years?

                Gaz

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Half Pint View Post
                  Neither, less intervention more prevention. Quit playing the roll that we have so willingly bought into as "World Policeman" Teddy R. Had it right, speak softly and carry a dang big stick.

                  HP
                  Hello mate

                  Define Prevention

                  Gaz

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post
                    I'll add a third for you old friend!...

                    Should the USA's foreign policy be MORE interventionist or MORE isolationist in nature than it already is, in terms of how YOU see its success or failure in the last 40 years?

                    Gaz
                    I stand with HP and er ...what ever the frick he comes up with as a definition...

                    I think............


                    how's that for a 'dodge'

                    b.
                    CV

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post
                      Hello mate

                      Define Prevention

                      Gaz
                      how about deterence then
                      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                      you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis View Post
                        I stand with HP and er ...what ever the frick he comes up with as a definition...

                        I think............


                        how's that for a 'dodge'

                        b.
                        CV
                        GAZ does it seem to you that CV is getting good at this
                        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          In all serious tho GAZ man it's as i said...we have had success (CW) and we have had failure (the Nam)...we are succeding against the fundo islamist fascists of this well worn world....but the reality of it's duration is unknown to many factors involved....

                          Like that ole reprobate SC Justice whats his name in reference to porn...I'll know the need for intervention when i see it (ie. feel it in my guts) and HP's prevention is a key...how that forms taint got a clue and aint afraid to admit it.

                          But in the end ISOLATIONISM IS REALLY OUT. For along that path lies APPEASEMENT....and that is invatation for genocide or unceasing conflict.

                          best on ya

                          CV

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Half Pint View Post
                            how about deterence then
                            How do you deter a nation/group with the threat of intervention... when the policy of deterance was chosen because intervention was too costly?

                            Problem to be solved?

                            Thanks old pal!

                            Gaz

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I say bring all our troops home. We have enough problems ourselves to much less worry about and try and fix everyone elses. We can project power economically.
                              If you can't set a good example, be a glaring warning.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X