What would happen if America practiced Isolationism?

[sun-star]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
why the hell didn't England, Francem Belgium, Spain or any OTHER European country lift a finger to help a DIRTECT neighbor.

Because they had fought "the war to end all wars" less than twenty years earlier.
Because they didn't want to admit they had failed in the 1919 peace settlements.
Because public opinion was against it, and all the countries you name were democracies (except Spain, who were Fascist themselves).
Because they had been disarming through the 1930s, and didn't want to re-arm.
Because they had just been through the Great Depression, and weren't ready to fight a war.
Because they were more worried about Communism in Russia and thought it was a greater threat.
Because they were weak, and blind, and they didn't see the threat. They thought they would stop Hitler if they gave him what he wanted. They were wrong, and we know that now. But I think their reasoning is understandable.

I'd love to have seen Belgium stand up to Hitler alone

[Athelwinde]

If the U.S. practised Isolationism, we might get back from our service economy and be more dependent on ourselves instead of other nations for raw materiels like, oil. Also, we won't have to spend so much on military overseas spending, therefore increasing our ability to pay off the national debt and our social services. That's just the beginning.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Athelwinde
If the U.S. practised Isolationism, we might get back from our service economy and be more dependent on ourselves instead of other nations for raw materiels like, oil.....

And steel, etc, etc. I agree with you, Athelwinde.

[nessa]

Ok. I'm a newbie but you post a question it's going to be answered!

It could be argued that America has been practising isolationism throughout it's own short history. On the advent of WW1 it was made clear that this was an entirely European matter and one that didn't warrant assitance from the States. The 'Lusitania' changed that and brought America into the war.

Hitler's invasion and absorbtion of other countries should not have been allowed to happen. Hindsight, of course, is a wonderful gift. However, the post above points out the historical reasoning as to why a 'lassiez-faire' attitude prevailed and that the UK itself practised a form of isolationism between the wars.

Again, the States made it clear that they were not going to become involved in European affairs this in spite of the so-called special relationship that had grown up between the two countries. Thus, the UK became embroiled in a war for which it was ill prepared. The Americans were approached and practically begged to give assitance. When the UK was in it's 'darkest hours', still no help was forthcoming. History now shows us that trading was going on between Germany and the USA, money was going into Germany from German-Americans. The German war effort had a great deal of support from America.

Of course, Pearl Harbour changed the American view and entered into the war. And it was truely awful.

Subsequent to WW2, there has been ongoing conflicts around the globe. America has only become involved when their own interests have been involved, whether political or monetary. There has then been an expectation that other countries will then support America in it's fight because they are on the side of right! Don't be surprised if not all subscribe to that point of view.

As for Iraq. No-body lifted a finger when Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds. It barely made the news. Now that natural reserves of oil are diminishing in the States then new markets are to be exploited. Hence this apparent interest in Iraq. I suspect, although it is my personal view, that Blair rues the day he agreed to become involved as this has served to isolate the UK from it's 'natural' neighbours and has brought severe condemnation from within his own country. It is also ironic that the UK is supporting the States given the spectacular lack of support we have received.

Just as an aside, when America invaded Grenada it was British Sovereign Terriority. No-body thought to tell the UK government that this was the American plan.

So, I am cynical about questions posted as above. You can't have it all ways. As a country America continues to appear uncertain about what it is that it wants to be on the world stage. It can't on the one hand tell everyone "it's your problem" but then start interfering when it suits.

Hope to express my view on other pages.

[Ornelírë Mistë]

I don't believe it would. "No man is an island", no country could be either (not literal sense). But in a way, much of America does seem isolated. Of what goes on in the world, what little we encounter is through news which is unreliable... There is too much news.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Ok. I'm a newbie but you post a question it's going to be answered!

Well, nothing wrong with being a newbie. Weren't we all at one point? There just aren't many newbies that come to Entmoot and dive right in head first. It's a very dangerous business, you know.
Just kidding. actually, you are very welcome here, but beware of the stick of wrath.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by nessa
It could be argued that America has been practising isolationism throughout it's own short history. On the advent of WW1 it was made clear that this was an entirely European matter and one that didn't warrant assitance from the States. The 'Lusitania' changed that and brought America into the war.

It's not a matter of whether it can be argued or not - it was a fact that America practiced isolationism. We did NOT want to get involved with the petty wars the European countries always found themselves in. And yes - America did feel they were petty.

Hitler's invasion and absorbtion of other countries should not have been allowed to happen. Hindsight, of course, is a wonderful gift. However, the post above points out the historical reasoning as to why a 'lassiez-faire' attitude prevailed and that the UK itself practised a form of isolationism between the wars.

England was far from isolationist - you still had a foothold in half the globe at that time - I would hardly call that isolationists. Pure and simple - Europe felt they could just appease Hitler and he'd be happy.

Again, the States made it clear that they were not going to become involved in European affairs this in spite of the so-called special relationship that had grown up between the two countries. Thus, the UK became embroiled in a war for which it was ill prepared. The Americans were approached and practically begged to give assitance. When the UK was in it's 'darkest hours', still no help was forthcoming.

Contrary to your opinion - we did give help - not military but we did supply your armies with munitions and other supplies.

History now shows us that trading was going on between Germany and the USA, money was going into Germany from German-Americans. The German war effort had a great deal of support from America.

Trading was not going on between the US and Germany - as you pointed out it was German Americans. But the US government was NOT supporting Germany. There is a difference - just like many British people supported Germany - or do not know about the many British Spies who worked for Germany?

Of course, Pearl Harbour changed the American view and entered into the war. And it was truely awful.

Yes - we were directly attacked - but NOT by Germany.

Subsequent to WW2, there has been ongoing conflicts around the globe. America has only become involved when their own interests have been involved, whether political or monetary. There has then been an expectation that other countries will then support America in it's fight because they are on the side of right! Don't be surprised if not all subscribe to that point of view.

Sorry to tell you this - but not all of them involve our self interest. Somalia - what interest was it to the US? What about Bosnia? There are many other conflicts that really have no effect on us. Do you really think we should care about Liberia? Yes - it was founded byu free slaves and has a long history with ties to the US - but does it do anything financially or politically or materially for us to send our troops there?

[jerseydevil]

As for Iraq. No-body lifted a finger when Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds. It barely made the news.

Actually - it was on the news a lot here.

Now that natural reserves of oil are diminishing in the States then new markets are to be exploited.

Actually - we get very little of our oil from the Middle East - Europe and japan both get over 50% and 75% respectively of their oil from that area of the world. We get the majority of our oil from Venezuela, Canada and domestic sources.

Hence this apparent interest in Iraq.

Yeah - it's ALL about oil isn't it? No matter that the US is spending a fortune when we could have just have lifted the sanctions on Hussein and let his people continue to be slaughtered at his hand like France wanted to do.

I suspect, although it is my personal view, that Blair rues the day he agreed to become involved as this has served to isolate the UK from it's 'natural' neighbours and has brought severe condemnation from within his own country. It is also ironic that the UK is supporting the States given the spectacular lack of support we have received.

What lack of support? We went into Bosnia and all over the place when Europe asked. Vietnam was a French colony - that is one of the reasons we got involved with Vietnam.

Just as an aside, when America invaded Grenada it was British Sovereign Terriority. No-body thought to tell the UK government that this was the American plan.

Since I am unfamiliar with Grenada I won't comment - but how do you know that the US didn't contact the UK government? And if we didn't - then why didn't the UK throw a fit?

So, I am cynical about questions posted as above. You can't have it all ways. As a country America continues to appear uncertain about what it is that it wants to be on the world stage. It can't on the one hand tell everyone "it's your problem" but then start interfering when it suits.

We interfere because we are forced to. How many frigging more UN resolutions were going to be put infront of Hussein just so he could piss on them?

But you know what - the US told Europe to handle Bosnia that it was Europes problem. Europe couldn't even mobilize itself enough to do anything and asked us to lead.

Look at israel and the palestinians - everyone looks at the US ot solve the problem there. First of all - we didn't even start the problem there - England and the UN did, second - why doesn't anyone else have the Israeli leaders and Palestinians over for discussions? Why does everyone point to the US? Why does everyone expect the US to meet with North Korea? Chirac wants to play world politics - why doesn't he sit down with the leaders of some of these countries?

In closing - if people of Europe don't like what the US does - then tell your governments to start getting involved with these countries. Europe just wanted to do with Hussein with what they did with Hitler - appease him. It didn't work with Hitler - it wasn't going to work with Hussein. I thought Europe was smart enough to learn from it's mistakes. You also can't be soing the same thing over and overr again and expect a different result. How many times has the US hosted meetings between Israel and Palestinians? How many times have we tried diplomatically to solve some of the Middle East problems? it was time to take a firm stand in the Middle East. 9/11 made that PERFECTLY clear for America.

[nessa]

'Tis clear that you and I are not going to agree on this. You're an American and I'm not. You have a point of view that I don't share. You will follow your political ideals and I will follow mine. The reality is that I'm not stating anything other then what are commonly held views on this side of the 'Pond'. No amount of rhetoric is going to change that.

One, almost snide, point that I will make is that the United Kingdom or the British Isles, whatever your preference, comprises four distinct countries. England is just one of those countries (I happen to be Scottish).That has been the situation for hundreds of years and is a historical fact. Doesn't bode well for any argument if this simple fact is ignored or is unknown.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by nessa
'Tis clear that you and I are not going to agree on this. You're an American and I'm not. You have a point of view that I don't share. You will follow your political ideals and I will follow mine. The reality is that I'm not stating anything other then what are commonly held views on this side of the 'Pond'. No amount of rhetoric is going to change that.

I know that - but whether I';m American or not - doesn't mean anything. I can be British and not agree with you.

As for what I am stating - these are commonly held views here. 57% of Americans support Bush and 67% currently support his handling of Iraq. I know it's the same over there - but Bush doesn't have to worry about you voting for him.

One, almost snide, point that I will make is that the United Kingdom or the British Isles, whatever your preference, comprises four distinct countries. England is just one of those countries (I happen to be Scottish).That has been the situation for hundreds of years and is a historical fact. Doesn't bode well for any argument if this simple fact is ignored or is unknown.

I have no idea if you were directing this to me or not - but I just wanted to say I don't need a history lesson on Britain - I studied English history for years. As for Northern Ireland really being a seperate country - it's more like occupied territory than anything else. Also - Scotland only just got it's own parliament again - so how free has it been all these years? You can't just sepertate from England - so you're not really like individual countries. England basically conquered you, along with Wales and Northern Ireland. You are more like a state.

[nessa]

I don't know why I'm doing this but..Scotland was/is the oldest crown in Europe. Scotland had a distinct monarchy when it's neighbours were still striven by feuding among the noblity. The Scots were a united country long before England became united.

Scotland then became the desire of England thus centuries of war between the countries ensued. The crowns became united on the accession of James VI and I. James, a Scottish King, ascended the English throne. It was a tradegy of epic proportions to all true Scots and signified centuries of quizzling lords willing to sell their souls for promises of English land.

It is not sufficient to say that Scotland became a state of England. Scotland retained it's own legislature, has it's own banking system and prints it's own money, retained all things spiritual, it's own language and very distinct culture. There is also a long and rich history. The monarch not only ascends to the English throne but then goes to Scotland to be crowned.

The Scots, in common with the other countries comprising the United Kingdom, were robbed off their heritage by their leaders lust for power and their greed for gold. The Scottish people were sold down the river by their leaders. Their tenacity in trying to hold on to their identity is admirable. Thus, to call everyone from the UK English Jersey Devil, is going to have the same affect as my reply to your post!

I would be one who supports total separatism (sp), not what is currently on offer. But, from small acorns...

I'm not going to post on this thread again for no other reason then I also believe in the old adage: he who fights and runs away lives to fight another day! See you around.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

Look at israel and the palestinians - everyone looks at the US ot solve the problem there. First of all - we didn't even start the problem there - England and the UN did, second - why doesn't anyone else have the Israeli leaders and Palestinians over for discussions? Why does everyone point to the US? Why does everyone expect the US to meet with North Korea? Chirac wants to play world politics - why doesn't he sit down with the leaders of some of these countries?

Because America gives total support for Israel, so Sharon knows he doesn't have to talk to anyone else? Which is why, when Tony Blair tried to host a meeting between Palestinians and Israelis, Sharon refused to allow the Palestinian delegation to attend, giving Blair a massive slap in the face.

The US has made it very clear since 1956 at least that nobody can take action in the Middle East without American approval- America has (rightly or wrongly ) planted itself directly in the middle of the situation. If you want to complain, go to talk to every American President since Eisenhower.

BTW the "roadmap" was supposed to be the policy of the Quartet (U.S. , EU, UN and Russia- the Palestinians didn't trust the Americans and the Israelis didn't trust the other three)

As for Korea, the North Koreans don't want to talk to Chirac or Blair or Koizumi or Hu or Roh because they don't think that any of those guys are threatening their country- and, rightly or wrongly, they think Bush is.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Athelwinde
If the U.S. practised Isolationism, we might get back from our service economy and be more dependent on ourselves instead of other nations for raw materiels like, oil. Also, we won't have to spend so much on military overseas spending, therefore increasing our ability to pay off the national debt and our social services. That's just the beginning.

What did they call that the last time it was tried?

Oh, yeah, the Great Depression.

Check out the history of the Smoot-Hawley Act

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well the only permanent members of the Security Council on that fab four list is France. And even so - those four countries only make up a small part of the UN.

Also - Germany and France have always pretty much said they want no part in Iraq - except with strings attached. Strings the US is not willing to allow. So I really don't know what making fun of their summit has to do with the UN. yeah - it was probably in poor taste. I didn't actually hear what was said - but I do support the harder stand we are taking with Europe - just like I supported it back in March.

Ummm, wouldn't you say that the last time the US went to the UN asking for a resolution on Iraq the opinions of the Big Two Chocolate Makers were pretty influential?

It's okay to support a harder line on Europe in March- but what happens when you come back asking them for help in September?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by nessa
I don't know why I'm doing this but..Scotland was/is the oldest crown in Europe.

It isn't the oldest crown in Europe anymore - it's defunct. It no longer exists except under the English/British Crown.

Scotland had a distinct monarchy when it's neighbours were still striven by feuding among the noblity. The Scots were a united country long before England became united.

I am unsure as to whether you were a single monarchy back in 1066 or not.

Scotland then became the desire of England thus centuries of war between the countries ensued. The crowns became united on the accession of James VI and I. James, a Scottish King, ascended the English throne. It was a tradegy of epic proportions to all true Scots and signified centuries of quizzling lords willing to sell their souls for promises of English land.

Yes - King James was a scottish King - but you notice where he moved to. Scotland didn't absorb England - England absorbed Scottland. Plus there is a lot more to it than just the crowns combining like that. You're government was dissolved - like I said - you only just got your own parliament.

It is not sufficient to say that Scotland became a state of England. Scotland retained it's own legislature, has it's own banking system and prints it's own money, retained all things spiritual, it's own language and very distinct culture. There is also a long and rich history. The monarch not only ascends to the English throne but then goes to Scotland to be crowned.

What do you mean it prints it's own money? You mean you don't use the British pound?

The Englsh couldn't wipe out your language- but how often do you speak it?

The Scots, in common with the other countries comprising the United Kingdom, were robbed off their heritage by their leaders lust for power and their greed for gold. The Scottish people were sold down the river by their leaders. Their tenacity in trying to hold on to their identity is admirable. Thus, to call everyone from the UK English Jersey Devil, is going to have the same affect as my reply to your post!

I didn't call everyone in the UK English. If I'm talking about the scotish - i'll say scottish. if I'm talking about the entire British islse - I'll say Britain. But generally I just say England or English - how many Scotish people have been Prime Minister in ENGLAND?

I would be one who supports total separatism (sp), not what is currently on offer. But, from small acorns...

If you are a seperate country as you stated - then why aren't you seperate?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
What did they call that the last time it was tried?

Oh, yeah, the Great Depression.

Check out the history of the Smoot-Hawley Act

The Great Depression had nothing to do with Isolationism. We had been isolationist since the country was founded. The Great Depression was caused by a run up in the stock market without any real value being generated - along with many other reason. My study of the Great Depression is a bit rusty - but it had nothing to do with isolationism - especially since Europe also went through a depression too at that time. So the US was not isolated from Europe economically.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The Great Depression had nothing to do with Isolationism. We had been isolationist since the country was founded. The Great Depression was caused by a run up in the stock market without any real value being generated - along with many other reason. My study of the Great Depression is a bit rusty - but it had nothing to do with isolationism - especially since Europe also went through a depression too at that time. So the US was not isolated from Europe economically.

Exactly- see my earlier post that isolationism ( a geopolitical/military doctrine) has nothing to do with autarky (the belief that nations should be economically self-sufficient)

I was pointing out to Athelwinde and Ruinel that protectionism is not a very good policy.

The Depression started with the collapse of the stock market, became the "Great" Depression due to a contractionary policy- accompanied by protectionism in the major economies, causing a collapse in world trade.

[Ornelírë Mistë]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
I am a democrat, and I'll vote for Bush again. Gore was brain dead IMO.

How closely do you pay attention to political goings-on? or even what party you call yourself? gore was no dream boat, but he is not a monkey like bush. though i will be the first to admit how ignorant i am about politics. i cant vote, either/

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by OrnelÃ*rë Mistë
How closely do you pay attention to political goings-on? or even what party you call yourself? gore was no dream boat, but he is not a monkey like bush. though i will be the first to admit how ignorant i am about politics. i cant vote, either/

I do not go to the polls and blindly cast votes. I do not vote, just to vote. Although politics is not one of my greatest interests, I follow events. When election time rolls around, I am knowledgable enough to pick a candidate and vote. I am a registered democrat, but if a candidate is a republican or other, and in my view, a better choice, then they get my vote. IMO, Gore was a do nothing VP, and would have been a do nothing president. I also had my doubts about his sincerity to protect the enviroment. So, for me, he was not the man for the job.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
how many Scotish people have been Prime Minister in ENGLAND?

Since 1721, there have been 7. In fact Scotland is statistically over-represented both in Parliament and in the records of British Prime Ministers.