The U.S. & Isolationism/Interventionism

[Liason]

What are your ratings on if the United States, in its current state, should be more interventionist (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) as opposed to isolationist (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and/or vice versa in the aspects of global/foreign/international economics, social issues, and politics. [1 being very isolationist, 10 being very interventionist]. 3 numbers. Please label, state why, and give the average.

[ArtistTyrant]

5, 4, 4, 13/3=@4.33

economically, the US has to assert itself more, as the leading economy, because China will cause problems otherwise

socially, the US should stand for rule of law and free speech, as embodied in the Constitution

politically, the US should be a force on the side of Europe against Muslims and the 92% of the world population that is nonwhite, note that i said "should"

[Arkeph]

Economically: 8
The US has had a strongly negative influence in some respects, but a positive and strong market influence generally. The US needs to generally get back into shape (by producing more of the things the rest of the world actually wants, among other things) and start caring about the harms it creates, especially through its massive arms sales, if its influence is going to continue to be a net gain for the world.

Socially: 8
The US needs to set an example. As the largest economic and military power, there is no reason not to also be the most lawful and just. The fact that the US has regressed so profoundly in this area has produced cynicism and badly damaged its credibility in this area. However, we can still have a strong impact by educating the world's poor and providing them technology which will allow them to invest their time in becoming both prosperous and just, rather than in merely subsisting.

Politically: 3
The best reason for the US to intervene in the politics of other countries than to synchronize efforts to improve the world socially and economically. Most other forms of political intervention seem to be games designed to favor one party at the expense of another, for no other reason than to gain enough political power to do it again.

Avg: 6.33

(The word "intervention" has negative connotations. I prefer "involvement" as a more neutral term.)

[Tristan]

3, 4, 4

I think this is basically the level of the Monroe Doctrine, where the US only intervenes in matters where it has a specific interest. As long as we do this we will get along congenially with other countries; whereas heavy-handed diplomacy and "doing things for others' sake" makes a nation unpredictable and creates extremely dangerous situations. Kind of like when Germany wrote Austria a "blank check" alliance in 1914.

Isolation applies particularly to diplomatic money. All money has strings attached, and since we throw around tons of money without ever getting results we want, our relations with the beneficiaries sour. The only reason I gave that one three points is that I don't think we should have trade barriers of any kind.

OP why didn't you explain where you stand on this?

[Angel1]

economically: 3/5; 3 over the short term because the United States needs to get out own house in order, so that we can successfully do more working with other countries. 5 in the long term because the United States should continue to lead the world in technological innovations

socially: 7; the US needs to primarily lead by example. The question is where do we lead the world? On taking care of our citizens, I demand real results not just happy-go-lucky legislated wishing. When it comes to stepping into foreign situations, we should tread lightly and proportionately to the situation at hand. Genocide should be stopped by any force necessary (up to and including an invasion if that's decided to be the best solution). Tibet needs to remain an active topic; keep speaking about Tibet and keep that headache among the fore-thoughts of China. In all situations, however, we must accept that we may not have the resources to execute the best solution when it needs to be executed. The United States needs to do what it can when it can to alleviate the suffering of people around the world, but this is contingent on exactly what the US can do and the consequences of the actions that we plan to take.

politically: 6; the US needs to actively seek the spread of Democracy in the most efficient and effective manner possible. Physical (military or otherwise) interventions should be done only on request (of a legitimate government/legitimately aggrieved party) or when no other option exists in the situation. As the US pulls out of massiver operations in the Middle East, we need to begin focusing on issues closer to home. Specifically, the US need to deal with Venezuela and Hugo Chavez. Chavez needs to be neutralized. Threatening war with Colombia may well be the excuse we need to remove Chavez from power, but again all consequences must be thoroughly thought out. Marginilization might also be the best policy to take with Hugo Chavez. At any rate, issues closer to home need to be taken care of and a fist ready to strike could be a very good diplomatic tool to have (actively mentioning it may not even be necessary, simple unspoken knowledge on all sides that it exists could be quite sufficient).

Short term average: 5.3333
Long term average: 6
Average of all scores: 5.25

[etrepoursoi]

Actually, the 'isolationism' vs. 'involvement' (to adopt Arkeph's term) dichotomy is not strictly accurate, because there are several approaches to 'involvement'. Specifically, there's unilateral involvement and multilateral involvement. The U.S. does need to lead by example (and I say this as a non-American), but it should engage the world through multilateral institutions (the UN, the IMF and World Bank, the IAEA, etc.) and multilateral/regional arrangements like the OAS, EU, APEC, the 4-party talks over North Korea, and so on, rather than trying to go it alone. The Tibet problem, for one, is best approached through the UN human rights processes. They lack credibility, yes, but that's partly because the U.S. has had a lukewarm, on-again-off-again relationship with the UN. Yet surely such multilateral strategies are America's best bet for peaceful, civilized engagement with the rest of the world?

[Angel1]

Actually, the 'isolationism' vs. 'involvement' (to adopt Arkeph's term) dichotomy is not strictly accurate, because there are several approaches to 'involvement'. Specifically, there's unilateral involvement and multilateral involvement. The U.S. does need to lead by example (and I say this as a non-American), but it should engage the world through multilateral institutions (the UN, the IMF and World Bank, the IAEA, etc.) and multilateral/regional arrangements like the OAS, EU, APEC, the 4-party talks over North Korea, and so on, rather than trying to go it alone. The Tibet problem, for one, is best approached through the UN human rights processes. They lack credibility, yes, but that's partly because the U.S. has had a lukewarm, on-again-off-again relationship with the UN. Yet surely such multilateral strategies are America's best bet for peaceful, civilized engagement with the rest of the world?
I had a nice long post typed out, but something didn't work quite right, so here's the short and sweet:
If North Korea keeps pushing it, eventually someone will have to take them out (permanently). It's time for some brinksmanship with NK. They do something stupid, we (several countries) pick a few good military targets in NK and blow them up. NK wants to play with the big boys, then it's time for the big boys to give NK a black eye or two or three. Station more troops in South Korea and be prepared to take the North by force if necessary. Simply said, the multilateral talks with North Korea are not working.

The US has had an on-again-off-again relationship with the UN because not everyone comes to the UN to make a good faith effort to solve the problems we face. When countries stand in the way of doing the right thing simply because they want to stand in the US's way, then it is only natural for us to bypass the UN and do what needs to be done with those who will join us.

We are on our way to becoming a Type 1 Civilization, so it's time to stop the petty bickering. It's time to start making good faith efforts to do what's best for everyone. No, US interests have not always aligned with what's best for everyone, and we should work on that part of it. However, the English-speaking nations are a huge number of the countries that the US can count on to always make good faith efforts to solve the world's problems and not begin interfere simply because they see the words "United States of America". It's time to start doing one good thing today that you didn't do yesterday. Eventually, all the pieces of the puzzle will fall into place and we will all be in a much better place.

Source for Type 1 Civilization: Dr. Michio Kaku (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[LaoTzu]

global/foreign/international economics, social issues, and politics.

Global: 7 -- The US is still the lone superpower
Foreign: 7 -- See above
Economic: 4 -- Integrate yes, but isolate where available to max out benefit.
Social: 3 -- influence but mind your own
Politics: 4 -- influence but mind your own.





When countries stand in the way of doing the right thing simply because they want to stand in the US's way, then it is only natural for us to bypass the UN and do what needs to be done with those who will join us.

THE VETO RECORD
USSR/Russia: 120 vetoes.(79 cast in 1st 10 years of the UN's existence)Only two vetoes since the collapse of the Soviet Union
US: 77 vetoes. Blocked 36 resolutions criticising Israel.
UK: 32 vetoes, 23 times with the US. All solo UK vetoes on Zimbabwe
France: 18 vetoes, 13 with the US and UK
China: 5 vetoes

[Angel1]

THE VETO RECORD
USSR/Russia: 120 vetoes.(79 cast in 1st 10 years of the UN's existence)Only two vetoes since the collapse of the Soviet Union
US: 77 vetoes. Blocked 36 resolutions criticising Israel.
UK: 32 vetoes, 23 times with the US. All solo UK vetoes on Zimbabwe
France: 18 vetoes, 13 with the US and UK
China: 5 vetoes


Security Council votes only, huh? How convenient. Furthermore, if the US must go it alone in defending Israel from being the target of so much of the world's ire, then so be it. Until we start seeing resolutions and nations speaking out against Palistinian attacks against Israel...we will criticize Israel in our own, quiet and private, way. Let's see some resolutions demanding that Iran stop calling for the destruction of Israel. Israel is in a fight for her survival every single day.

Thus, that's 41 US vetoes (according to your statistics).

[etrepoursoi]

... If North Korea keeps pushing it, eventually someone will have to take them out (permanently). It's time for some brinksmanship with NK. They do something stupid, we (several countries) pick a few good military targets in NK and blow them up. NK wants to play with the big boys, then it's time for the big boys to give NK a black eye or two or three. Station more troops in South Korea and be prepared to take the North by force if necessary. Simply said, the multilateral talks with North Korea are not working.

Even so, if military intervention in NK is the only option, do you think it'd be prudent for the U.S. to lead an effort without China's (not to say Japan's and South Korea's) consent? The risks of knock-on effects would be huge -- China and Taiwan, China and Japan, etc. And taking into account (1) that the Northeast Asian region is basically stable now, despite having three powerful states there; and (2) NK is far from being a direct threat to the U.S., would unilateral intervention be advisable? See, this talk about blowing things up halfway across the world from where you are is what gives America a bad rep over here ;)

The US has had an on-again-off-again relationship with the UN because not everyone comes to the UN to make a good faith effort to solve the problems we face. When countries stand in the way of doing the right thing simply because they want to stand in the US's way, then it is only natural for us to bypass the UN and do what needs to be done with those who will join us.

It's a vicious circle, really: U.S. bypasses the UN, (some among) the international community think this is American arrogance, they resolve to oppose U.S. diplomatic efforts, U.S. side-steps them and the UN process, and repeat ad nauseum. But why is there an automatic assumption that "the problems [you] face" aren't also the problems which lots of other countries face as well? North Korea is clearly a problem even for China; a number of the moderate Arab states aren't too happy with Iran's brinkmanship; the Latin American states largely agree that FARC is a problem, but also (with the exception of Colombia) oppose U.S. military presence in the region. Surely a negotiated multilateral solution is better than riding in cowboy style?

(Sorry, couldn't resist a well-worn stereotype.)

... Furthermore, if the US must go it alone in defending Israel from being the target of so much of the world's ire, then so be it. Until we start seeing resolutions and nations speaking out against Palistinian attacks against Israel...we will criticize Israel in our own, quiet and private, way. Let's see some resolutions demanding that Iran stop calling for the destruction of Israel. Israel is in a fight for her survival every single day. ...

Here's where I agree with you, partially. I agree about Israel fighting for her survival, although Arab animosity against Israel has deep roots going back to 1948 and the carving out of the Israeli state from what was then Palestine. But in any case, I think Israel is capable of militarily defending itself, as 1967 and 1973 showed. And even if it weren't, would American political support do much to prevent Israel's demise? Persistently defending Israel only gives off the impression that (1) the U.S. is fundamentally opposed to Islam; and (2) it is merely motivated by the Jewish lobby back home.

[larkin]

Security Council votes only, huh? How convenient. Furthermore, if the US must go it alone in defending Israel from being the target of so much of the world's ire, then so be it. Until we start seeing resolutions and nations speaking out against Palistinian attacks against Israel...we will criticize Israel in our own, quiet and private, way. Let's see some resolutions demanding that Iran stop calling for the destruction of Israel. Israel is in a fight for her survival every single day.

Very, very quiet (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) way. We will arrive late to dinner! You've been warned.

[Tristan]

Here's where I agree with you, partially. I agree about Israel fighting for her survival, although Arab animosity against Israel has deep roots going back to 1948 and the carving out of the Israeli state from what was then Palestine. But in any case, I think Israel is capable of militarily defending itself, as 1967 and 1973 showed. And even if it weren't, would American political support do much to prevent Israel's demise? Persistently defending Israel only gives off the impression that (1) the U.S. is fundamentally opposed to Islam; and (2) it is merely motivated by the Jewish lobby back home.

While you're right in saying that the US' express support of Israel confers tangible benefits with none but Israel, withdrawing from this alliance simply because we're sure they can defend themselves from the dangers they face is repugnant.

Every few weeks, Ahmadinejad reiterates a vow to destroy Israel. It is definitely possible that he only does this to help support oil futures, which thrive on volatility. That explanation leaves an awful lot to chance, however; if I were Israel I would be poised to strike when I thought he'd acquired nukes, and be damned to the diplomatic consequences. With the endless stream of anti-Israel resolutions, it's not like Israel is indebted to the UN anyway. If survival is bad diplomacy, you're probably not dealing with true friends.

[Dodeca]

While you're right in saying that the US' express support of Israel confers tangible benefits with none but Israel, withdrawing from this alliance simply because we're sure they can defend themselves from the dangers they face is repugnant.

Every few weeks, Ahmadinejad reiterates a vow to destroy Israel. It is definitely possible that he only does this to help support oil futures, which thrive on volatility. That explanation leaves an awful lot to chance, however; if I were Israel I would be poised to strike when I thought he'd acquired nukes, and be damned to the diplomatic consequences. With the endless stream of anti-Israel resolutions, it's not like Israel is indebted to the UN anyway. If survival is bad diplomacy, you're probably not dealing with true friends.

Not to disagree about preventing Iran from obtaining Nukes, but if Israel strikes Iran WW3 will start. 1 million Iranians died in the Iran Iraq war of the 80s. Iran is much more powerful now.

[Angel1]

Even so, if military intervention in NK is the only option, do you think it'd be prudent for the U.S. to lead an effort without China's (not to say Japan's and South Korea's) consent? The risks of knock-on effects would be huge -- China and Taiwan, China and Japan, etc. And taking into account (1) that the Northeast Asian region is basically stable now, despite having three powerful states there; and (2) NK is far from being a direct threat to the U.S., would unilateral intervention be advisable? See, this talk about blowing things up halfway across the world from where you are is what gives America a bad rep over here ;)
The US has territories not too far from North Korea. That being said, this is where my lost (and better) post would have been better. When it comes to making a few missile strikes in North Korea, I might be willing to do that alone. It would likely depend on both how good the target is and what our reasoning would be for doing it. Before going it alone on missile strikes, I would have to have a NK missile test of some distance towards a US territory or a missile test that could potentially reach Hawaii (and/or some Alaskan islands). More likely, I would want at least a few other countries to at least support our missile strikes.

If it came to an invasion, there would be no way that I would advocate the US going it alone unless there were a very real threat to the US. Any invasion is going to take enough major powers to either convince China that it's best to just let us get on with it or China's effective go ahead (either outright support or looking the other way). 99% likelihood that I would not support a solo invasion of North Korea. The potential knock on effects could be huge, this is true. The US has already parked a fleet between mainland China and Taiwan before and I know that China and Japan still have issues. A decision to invade North Korea shouldn't be made unilaterally and would not be an easy decision to make; I just feel/fear that the situation is headed in that direction.


It's a vicious circle, really: U.S. bypasses the UN, (some among) the international community think this is American arrogance, they resolve to oppose U.S. diplomatic efforts, U.S. side-steps them and the UN process, and repeat ad nauseum. But why is there an automatic assumption that "the problems [you] face" aren't also the problems which lots of other countries face as well? North Korea is clearly a problem even for China; a number of the moderate Arab states aren't too happy with Iran's brinkmanship; the Latin American states largely agree that FARC is a problem, but also (with the exception of Colombia) oppose U.S. military presence in the region. Surely a negotiated multilateral solution is better than riding in cowboy style?

(Sorry, couldn't resist a well-worn stereotype.)
The thing is that many of the problems that we decide to take on are shared by other nations. That's why we usually try to negotiate and use diplomacy first (by usually I mean if it's a situation that doesn't need to be taken care of immediately). When our diplomatic efforts get bogged down by petty fools, we rightly get angry. Petty fools are even worse when time is of the essence. Sometimes the US could use a little more patience, but the rest of the world should learn to take the cue that when the English-Speaking countries start ignoring them in favor of talks among each other, then it's time to make a decision and do what needs to be done diplomatically. The clock is always ticking on diplomacy. There's not a set time limit and time can be added, but diplomacy is done when the clock runs out (successful or not). Should diplomacy not succeed before the clock runs out in an Iranesque situation, probably means military action is coming (and god that would be bad...look at the terrain an intervention would have to be fought on, yuck). Quickly and completely (considering even the consequences of the proposed solution) solving disputes is a good thing in diplomacy.

I can forgive the cowboy comment given that you recognize it is a stereotype.


Here's where I agree with you, partially. I agree about Israel fighting for her survival, although Arab animosity against Israel has deep roots going back to 1948 and the carving out of the Israeli state from what was then Palestine. But in any case, I think Israel is capable of militarily defending itself, as 1967 and 1973 showed. And even if it weren't, would American political support do much to prevent Israel's demise? Persistently defending Israel only gives off the impression that (1) the U.S. is fundamentally opposed to Islam; and (2) it is merely motivated by the Jewish lobby back home.
In the 1967 Six Day War, the United States and United Kingdom at the very least positioned naval assets in the Meditteranean as a check on a major invasion of Israel. Some reports also indicate the transfer of weapons to Israel from both the US and UK; I could not determine the credibility of such reports. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the United States conducted Operation Nickel Grass to resupply Israel for the war effort. Operation Nickel Grass resulted in the 1973 Oil Embargo on the United States by Arab oil producing nations.

The US has led and mediated numerous peace negotiations between Israel and Palistine/the rest of the Arab world. For as long as Israel is hit by rockets and missiles fron Palistinian/Arab terrorists, peace will be a distant dream. The world and, most importantly, the Palistians need to decide whether they really want peace. Honestly, the Arab world may not be ready for peace; they have not suffered the exhaustion of two world wars. The Arab world has not been to the brink of complete, total, and utter death of self and enemy alike. Perhaps not having seen the abyss, they do not know to avoid the abyss. The world wars proved a major incentive for Europeans to make peace among each other; let us pray that it does not take a similar shock for the Middle East to enjoy peace.

[larkin]

The US has led and mediated numerous peace negotiations between Israel and Palistine/the rest of the Arab world. For as long as Israel is hit by rockets and missiles fron Palistinian/Arab terrorists, peace will be a distant dream. The world and, most importantly, the Palistians need to decide whether they really want peace. Honestly, the Arab world may not be ready for peace; they have not suffered the exhaustion of two world wars. The Arab world has not been to the brink of complete, total, and utter death of self and enemy alike. Perhaps not having seen the abyss, they do not know to avoid the abyss. The world wars proved a major incentive for Europeans to make peace among each other; let us pray that it does not take a similar shock for the Middle East to enjoy peace.

I'll leave to the mods to decide whether or not to split, but - it's Palestinians. If you're going to casually slander an entire group of people offering nothing but the shallowest of talking points, all to justify apartheid, know how to spell the name.

[Angel1]

I'll leave to the mods to decide whether or not to split, but - it's Palestinians. If you're going to casually slander an entire group of people offering nothing but the shallowest of talking points, all to justify apartheid, know how to spell the name.
Wow, so basically all you have there is a complaint about spelling errors. Nothing I said slanders the Palestinians (unless the spelling errors themselves slander the Palestinians). I have made a very valid point; peace between nations has frequently come at the point of mutual exhaustion for both sides. Spare me the self-righteous indignation and make some real counter points.

At any rate, the US has done and is doing about as much as we can to encourage the peace process between Israel and Palestine. We talk with numerous nations of the Middle East, year-in and year-out to try and give both sides peace.

[larkin]

Spare me the self-righteous indignation and make some real counter points.

First of all, your post is the one that starts with all the indignation in defense of the "English-speaking" world, as if that were one entity anymore than the Arab-speaking one is. And counterpoints require the presence of actual points rather than bad generalizations, stereotypes and ethnic insults, but okay, here's what you said:

the Palistians need to decide whether they really want peace

followed by

Honestly, the Arab world may not be ready for peace

The Palestinians live under apartheid and have an active insurgency against Israeli rule. I am not defending their actions, but they're not significantly different from the IRA. Would we then excuse the British forcing the rest of the Irish, most of whom have not contributed to the insurgency and have every interest in peace, to live in these conditions? Would we actively enable that apartheid by insulating the British completely from any international criticism, continuing with the fantasy that they were the ones who wanted peace?

On the day of Biden's arrival to promote peace, the Israelis announced thousands of new housing developments on Palestinian land. In direct defiance of internationally accepted standards that have been in place since 1948, in direct contradiction to promises made during the 2003 road map for peace, in direct contradiction to promises made in 2009 to stop further settlement construction. In short, they routinely break whatever exceptionally limited promises they've already made not to confiscate Palestinian land. How can anyone see that as anything but a partner who has no interest in peace?

If you want to say Israel is right to have no interest in peace - an argument others have made - fine, but stop with the talking point that Israelis have promoted peace while the Palestinians are the ones who sabotage it.

[Angel1]

First of all, your post is the one that starts with all the indignation in defense of the "English-speaking" world, as if that were one entity anymore than the Arab-speaking one is.
When I say English-speaking world, I refer to those countries who have a history of governance (in government form) and a culture whose origins ultimately trace back to Great Britain. We are significantly more similar to one another than we are to anyone else. Yes, each nation among this group has had additional immigrant and native groups that (along with independent cultural evolution) have given each country a unique cultural flavor; however, this does not change the fact that these countries heavily reflect their English heritage of governance and culture.
If you want to say Israel is right to have no interest in peace - an argument others have made - fine, but stop with the talking point that Israelis have promoted peace while the Palestinians are the ones who sabotage it.
I never claimed that Israel was ready for peace or even that they were doing all they could to promote peace. Nothing angers me more than when people put words into my mouth that I myself have not said. It is only slightly less annoying than when people point out that I have focused solely on one side of the problem and not the other, but at least in the second scenario I am annoyed at myself.

[larkin]

I never claimed that Israel was ready for peace or even that they were doing all they could to promote peace. Nothing angers me more than when people put words into my mouth that I myself have not said. It is only slightly less annoying than when people point out that I have focused solely on one side of the problem and not the other, but at least in the second scenario I am annoyed at myself.

Well, then, again, perhaps you shouldn't have written:

For as long as Israel is hit by rockets and missiles fron Palistinian/Arab terrorists, peace will be a distant dream. The world and, most importantly, the Palistians need to decide whether they really want peace. Honestly, the Arab world may not be ready for peace...

or

Furthermore, if the US must go it alone in defending Israel from being the target of so much of the world's ire, then so be it. Until we start seeing resolutions and nations speaking out against Palistinian attacks against Israel...

Why would anyone think from these quotes that you were being one-sided?

[freeeekyyy]

What are your ratings on if the United States, in its current state, should be more interventionist (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) as opposed to isolationist (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and/or vice versa in the aspects of global/foreign/international economics, social issues, and politics. [1 being very isolationist, 10 being very interventionist]. 3 numbers. Please label, state why, and give the average.

We should neither be isolationist nor interventionist. Leave foreign countries alone, but trade freely with all who wish to participate. A strong military is also appropriate, but should only be used for defensive purposes. We have troops all across the globe, and they need to be removed.

So I guess that comes down to 1,1,1. Leave people alone, unless they want to involve themselves with us.

[larkin]

We should neither be isolationist nor interventionist. Leave foreign countries alone, but trade freely with all who wish to participate. A strong military is also appropriate, but should only be used for defensive purposes. We have troops all across the globe, and they need to be removed.

Yes, as a follow-up, and to return the original subject - it's not the level of intervention but the effectiveness. Any time you limit yourself to a one-size fits all, cookie-cutter approach, either in level or choice of approach, it's going to compromise effectiveness.