• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

American should go isolationist - But it won't

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
I think our inactions are more responsable than our actions.

We should have taken care of afganistan better after the soviets left.
We should have gone after al queda sooner.
We should have somehow made the CIA better.
We should have taken bin laden when he was offered to us.
The people we trust to intervene have their own set of agendas. If Iraq isn't a prime example of this I don't know what will serve as one. Thus most actions taken to intervene abroad will bring negative repercussions our way at some point in the future.

As much as I hate to think of what the U.N. will grow into I can't deny that for the time being they make honest efforts to intervene for peace, they don't overstay their welcome and they don't make deals with strings attached.


No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
My point, concerning being checked and what not, is that if the US is the best thing in the world right now, it is at risk of ceasing to be, of becoming the worst from corruption and nothing to give it pause for thought. Yes, I am somewhat cynical of the US and it living up to it's ideals, especially when it comes to the current Iraq fiasco, but there are other reasons. If I am wrong and the US continues to espouse or brings enlightenment to various parts of the world, good, but past performance does not gaurantee future results, people can turn from their ideals and become a force for "evil" rather easily, the less resistance the more likely(power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely) for them to be corrupted.



Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
Isolationism was very popular in the 30's and look where that got us. fact is you can't cut yourself off from the world no matter how much you try. You are in this world so you have to participate actively or you end up like europe in 1942/43.

Piano Man

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2000
If America were to go to a more isolated state the people of this country would need to make some major changes to their daily lives. As the world's most affluent society, we are living WAY out of our bounds. There is no way we can survive within our own borders with the way we consume. That is why we have so many foreign "interests". Although we should go after the corps that ruin our foreign relationships, we should also look at ourselves everytime we go to Wally World because we get an impulse to buy something.


Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Although I agree with you in that the U.S. should go isolationist, I don't think it is possible today. Even though we have been involved with many countries for a long time, many people will argue that September 11th was a direct result of American non-involvement. And to some extent, this is true. What if the U.S. had taken an active role in rooting out terrorists in the late 80s and early 90s? Would we have the problems we have today? Maybe, but maybe not. Especially now, post 9/11, it has become evident that terrorists are willing to attack Americans on U.S. soil. How can we just sit back and let that happen? Also, even though some U.S. corporations and business interests cause disent in the rest of the world, they are also a major source of U.S. income. If they were all to pull out, I think the business loss would be tremndous and far outway the money spent on foreign affairs. I would have to see the numbers to be sure, but this is just what I think.

This is a very tricky subject, because we cannot just sit back and watch our country get attacked, and at the same time we don't want to increase the number of possible attacks. However, an isolationist stance is impossible in a world as accessible as ours, in terms of communication and transportation. Unless we close our borders completely (which, in my opinion, is not a good idea) and install a very good missile defense system, we have no choice but to be involved with foreign affairs. But that does not mean we cannot limit our world involvement, especially when it comes to such countries as Liberia.

I hope that makes sense...
I see you are brainwashed by the pundits at the corporate media and in governemnt... Next you're going to say, as the president did, "They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other" Save it.

Sorry but it's our overt invention and hypocrisy which caused 911 and which causes half the world to hate us today: They did'nt attack Switzerland and don't hate them either. Ask Osama and the millions who support or empathise with him why they hate us. Until we examine the real reasons and are serious about it instead of blaming Islam, isolation, jealousy or whatever bogus reason of that month we will continue to have problems and lash out.


Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
Where in my statement did I blame Islam, isolationism, or jealousy? If you look back a my statement, I said that "many people will argue that September 11th was a direct result of American non-involvement. And to some extent, this is true." I didn't say that September 11th was certianly a direct result of American non-involvement. I did't even say that I believed it. Who knows if American non-involvement caused September 11th since there are so many other factors to consider. Perhaps it was our "lack of understanding of the Islamic religion". I don't know. I was just trying to point out why isolation will not work now that we have been attacked on our own soil. It is too late for the U.S. to leave the rest of the world alone.

That is not pointing blame toward American isolation.

Also, in the end, the attacks may be our own damn fault, but that does not justify them.