Should the United States adopt Isolationism as it's Foreign Policy?

[bryant69]

Poll question: Should the United States adopt Isolationism as it's Foreign Policy?

Just out of curiousity - I note that the tiny Isolationist wing of the Republican party has made more noise over the last little bit.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mmonk]

1. I believe in constructive engagement. But if the

choices are between what we have now and isolationism, I'll pick isolationalism. However, I'm sure isolation will occur if things don't change by choice of the rest of the world.

[enigma000]

2. worked after WWI, didn't it?

At least for a few years........

[sweetheart]

3. No, hardly

It should learn to achieve its policy ends without violence, but more arm twisting,
and artful diplomatic engagement. The foreign policy of today is lead by the wars,
the drugs war mostly, as most nations are not in otherwise a war with the US, but
the drugs war is a global war on poverty and i'm for isolationism if it gets the
us to lay off that banal stupid policy of war on the global poor and corruption of
other regimes via its stupid-war.

So, i'm for a lighter touch, in a phrase of words. We are a demanding country, and
if we can learn to lead from the front, by example, then the rhetoric needn't be so
dense of lies, as a simple truth does just fine.

[fasttense]

4. Those are not the only choices

A fake "free market" that allows anyone with money to exploit labor and use American markets like dumping grounds for cheap products (like we have now)or "isolationism". There is a middle ground, especially in a democracy. But it has Not been tried in six years. Isolationism is a Bogey man used to scare anyone who dare think the market should conform to the will of the People and not the will of Corporations.

[bryant69]

6. It's not just that bogey man though

I see what you are saying (I think some sort of fair trade system should be implemented myself) but I was thinking more about political foreign policy, rather than economic foreign policy. And Isolationism as regards to political foreign policy is still around, although not as powerful as it once was.

Bryant

[The2ndWheel]

5. Couldn't if we wanted to

America has been an expanding center of power since day 1, and there isn't a chance it'll stop now. Most importantly because we need the energy. Even if we did become isolationist, other dead empires would then come back to life. They would expand, eventually bump into us, and we wouldn't be isolationist anymore. In a world of exponential growth, there can be no such thing.

[The Stranger]

7. Thai military is rounding up its gov't reps, but still Iran is the focus.

A coup has seized control of an entire fucking nation, ending democracy there, yet the government and its media whores are obsessed with Iran, still seeking to fuck the U.S. into yet another illegal war.

Meanwhile, North Korea -- which already has nuclear weapons (as opposed to Iran, who is 6-10 years away from nuclear weapons) -- is launching and test-firing multiple missles into the Pacific and boasting that it now has delivery systems capable of reaching Los Angeles.

Holy mindfuck, what is going on here?

[dmosh42]

8. Couldn't, even if we wanted!

First, we are dependent on that oil import, otherwise the economy and jobs are down the tubes. And second, so far we haven't showed that we can isolate ourselves by controlling the immigration and imports. I would love to be able to shut down all immigration until the rest of the world gets back on track, but it won't happen.