What would happen if America practiced Isolationism?

[afro-elf]

What would happen if America practiced Isolationism?

[Jonathan]

The world would be a bit more dangerous to live in.
As the most powerful nation on earth, both economically and military, it is the US's responsability to not be isolationistic but to make sure that the world becomes a better one.

[jerseydevil]

The world would fall apart. But hey - I say we try it again for a while - see after America has been baby-sitting for about 60 years if Europe can handle itself better than it did before. We can spend out taxes on ourselves for once.

[Radagast]

Europe has managed for centuries without your involvement. It's not the standard war-torn destitute region you think it is you know, I am sure we would get along without you.

[Elvellon]

Western Europe profited a lot from American involvement, but America had also a vested interest in Europe not fall to Communism, that is why it kept such a powerful presence there (and why it supported a few dictatorships there too, not all things were positive). If America had withdrawn from Europe after WWII, it is doubtful if the Cold War would now be a thing from the past. Take the wealth generated by Western Europe (including transatlantic trade) and add, say, 1/3 of it to the USSR, plus the scientific resources of Western Europe, their influence (and perhaps effective control) of many colonies and what you get wouldn’t be a rosy picture.

As for now, could the US afford isolationism? Without projecting force, would the US be able to be so influential in the world’s trade? And if not, would that not influence America negatively?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Radagast
I am sure we would get along without you.

No problem. I'm sure we would too.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
Europe has managed for centuries without your involvement. It's not the standard war-torn destitute region you think it is you know, I am sure we would get along without you.

Yeah - centuries of infighting. Two World Wars within 20 years of each other. Of course it's not the war torn region it is now - but look at your history. War after war after war against your countries.


Elvellon - I agree - it was in our best interest to protect you from communism. That goes without saying. We instituted the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and Japan. But that is over with. You guys have been on your feet for decades, the Soviet Union has been gone for over a decade. I however don't understand what you mean about our military enforcing trade. How does our military enforce trade with Europe or anytone else? Do our tanks come in when Europe increases tarrifs or do our planes bomb your cities when you refuse to take our genetically grown corn? We have a huge trade deficit so we really suck at influencing trade in our favor.

South Korea was having anti-American demonstrations - they even elected their leader under the promise that he was going to kick us out. Now that North Korea is testing missiles - they no longer want us to leave. Everyone around the world criticises America for whatever we do - if we don't do something - we get critcised, if we get involved we get criticised.

We saved the world from Soviet domination - our job is done. Let Europe deal with the problems of the Middle East - problems they created by their colonialism.

[Sween]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Yeah - centuries of infighting. Two World Wars within 20 years of each other. Of course it's not the war torn region it is now - but look at your history. War after war after war against your countries.

well you have only two neigbours really same with everything the more neigbours you have the more likly you are to have a go at them.

And JD dont have a go at us for having two world wars the second world war was a direct conquence of the first due to our lack of forsight

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Radagast
Europe has managed for centuries without your involvement. It's not the standard war-torn destitute region you think it is you know, I am sure we would get along without you.

Guess you forgot about WWII....

[Elvellon]

I however don't understand what you mean about our military enforcing trade. How does our military enforce trade with Europe or anytone else? Do our tanks come in when Europe increases tarrifs or do our planes bomb your cities when you refuse to take our genetically grown corn?

An example. The US was quite successful art “selling” the idea of the duo “democracy + capitalism,” but in many places (not Western Europe) they are not as solid as they appear to be on the surface. There is a lot of resentment about the later than can easily be explored against the former in many of the most poor and unstable countries. A withdraw of the US military presence (or potential threat of presence), could lead to “interesting times” as the Chinese say. Anyway, free trade would suffer, and would also the ability to influence the mentalities, leading to lesser influence of the US. So I believe.

Let Europe deal with the problems of the Middle East - problems they created by their colonialism.

Most Europeans would claim that the problems in the Middle East (including recent events) started after WWII, when European power had declined much (and “our” capacity to influence and make independent decisions there, without the tacit approval of the US, was rather limited) . So we don’t feel inclined to take the blame and get into there (despite that, my government decided to send some military police in, at the request of the US).

[Dúnedain]

While I don't think we should become isolationist, I'd like for us to just do it to show the world how dependent they really are on us. I only say this because I am just always sick of the US getting talked trashed about and criticized for everything we do. Like JD said, we are criticized for anything we do. Perfect example look at Liberia, we were criticized for not doing anything and then when we got Charles Taylor out and sent some troops we were criticized for not sending enough troops. I mean come on, I'm sick of that crap. We are always the bad guys, we were even blamed for 9/11 by some.

I say we stick by those countries who have supported us through and through and pull out and stop helping those that have continued to question us or stab us in the back or change tune on us when they need our help.

Like I said, I don't want us to be isolationists, but at the same time I want us to be just to prove a point, because let's face it, spite rules

[jerseydevil]

Dúnedain - that is exactly how I feel. That's why I support the COMPLETE withdrawa of our troops from Germany. of course many towns in Germany will go under - but hey - Schroeder said enough stuff to make us feel unwelcome. We'll go over to the Eastern European countries where we are more appreciated.

Elvellon - you may think that that is when the Middle East Crisis began - but maybe you should read the history of the Middle East. Look at the colonialism that occurred in the Middle East - also America wasn't even directly involved in the Middle East in the 40's. Britain and France in particular are the two countries which divided up the Middle East into the countries they are today. Most of it occurred during WWI - NOT WWII.

If you want to read a really good book on the history of the modern Middle East - I would recommend... A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East

By the way - is it America's fault that not all countries are stable in democracy and capitalism? We succeeded in many places - Russia is enjoying freedom now as is Eastern Europe as a whole. Japan isn't a shappy success story either. Europe may not want to give us credit for it - but it was our presence and our tax dollars that bankrupted the Soviet Union. When Reagan put more missiles in Germany while there were thousands of demonstrations throughout Europe and people saying that WWIII was inevitable. Well - soon after - the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union dissolved, albeit without a few last death throw kicks. But the Soviet Union is no longer - and most of the credit should go to the US - but Europe refuses to give this credit to us. To them - it was everyone but the US which ended communism in Eastern Europe.

I just find the world very ungrateful to the US and as I said before - no matter what we do it's wrong. I don't think we will become isolationists. I do support pulling out of the UN and I do think that if we don't get better support from Europe - I think we should start turning a blind eye to them. The only thing that comes out of Europe and this has been since Reagan - is criticism. Europe wants us on the world stage - but they only want us there on their terms and as they pull the strings. My tax dollars aren't going to do the bidding of Europe.

Sween - I'm not having a go at you - I'm just stating facts. It's just because we still hear on the news from Europeans there superior attitude toward us, when history shows us that your handling of world events in the past were far worse. We haven't had a world war since WWII - 60 years ago.

Also - I agree - WWII was a result of WWI - but Europe sat on it's hands while Hitler just built up armies. Also- you guys just sold out your neighbors and said "take Czechloslovakia but just don't touch Poland". Well - then when he attacked Poland - it was too late to do anything. Hitler was much bigger - much stronger and no one in Europe had wanted to do anything - other than really Churchill and he lost his position for initially speaking out. it seems as if Europe still hasn't learned from WWII - because they still would rather appease dicators and leaders who threaten world peace than actually want to do something to prevent a bigger mess in the future.

[Elvellon]

Elvellon - you may think that that is when the Middle East Crisis began - but maybe you should read the history of the Middle East. Look at the colonialism that occurred in the Middle East - also America wasn't even directly involved in the Middle East in the 40's. Britain and France in particular are the two countries which divided up the Middle East into the countries they are today. Most of it occurred during WWI - NOT WWII.

What I believe is that you are oversimplifying things. The Middle East situation is not the result of a single early factor but of many, occurring over time, especially those occurring after the WWII. Ultimately, I believe the main responsibles are the main actors themselves.

By the way - is it America's fault that not all countries are stable in democracy and capitalism? We succeeded in many places - Russia is enjoying freedom now as is Eastern Europe as a whole. Japan isn't a shappy success story either. Europe may not want to give us credit for it - but it was our presence and our tax dollars that bankrupted the Soviet Union. When Reagan put more missiles in Germany while there were thousands of demonstrations throughout Europe and people saying that WWIII was inevitable. Well - soon after - the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union dissolved, albeit without a few last death throw kicks. But the Soviet Union is no longer - and most of the credit should go to the US - but Europe refuses to give this credit to us. To them - it was everyone but the US which ended communism in Eastern Europe.

This is not a matter of “fault,” JD, but of consequences, regardless of “fault” or laurels. Your speech is mostly wasted, and not to the point. Fact is, many countries seem to be still quite unstable in terms of democracy. Fact is, there is a lot of resentment of how capitalism is being implemented in many countries. This, is not about whose fault this is so, but of existing circumstances, and a what if scenario.

So I ask, do you think that, if the US becomes seriously isolationist, many of those countries would remain firmly bound to democracy, or would support free trade? If not, would that not hurt the US economy?

Also - I agree - WWII was a result of WWI - but Europe sat on it's hands while Hitler just built up armies. Also- you guys just sold out your neighbors and said "take Czechloslovakia but just don't touch Poland". Well - then when he attacked Poland - it was too late to do anything. Hitler was much bigger - much stronger and no one in Europe had wanted to do anything - other than really Churchill and he lost his position for initially speaking out. it seems as if Europe still hasn't learned from WWII - because they still would rather appease dicators and leaders who threaten world peace than actually want to do something to prevent a bigger mess in the future.

You seem to forget; “we” didn’t exist then. The idea of a common bound uniting all Europeans may not be recent, but certainly wasn’t given any credit. There wasn’t a “we” then, there were only British, French, Germans, Portuguese, etc. The ocean thing that you seem to attribute such importance didn’t matter. Everyone there or here felt the same; “it isn't us, it isn’t our business.”

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
What I believe is that you are oversimplifying things. The Middle East situation is not the result of a single early factor but of many, occurring over time, especially those occurring after the WWII. Ultimately, I believe the main responsibles are the main actors themselves.

If you look at the history of the modern Middle East - you will find that the main players were the British and French. They are the ones who divided up the lands and created the countries as they stand today - regardless of ethnic strife. This is one of the reasons Iraq is made up of basically three regions.

This is not a matter of “fault,” JD, but of consequences, regardless of “fault” or laurels. Your speech is mostly wasted, and not to the point. Fact is, many countries seem to be still quite unstable in terms of democracy. Fact is, there is a lot of resentment of how capitalism is being implemented in many countries. This, is not about whose fault this is so, but of existing circumstances, and a what if scenario.

So I ask, do you think that, if the US becomes seriously isolationist, many of those countries would remain firmly bound to democracy, or would support free trade? If not, would that not hurt the US economy?

It's not wasted. Which MAJOR democractic/capitalist countries are there that we are currently propping up that will fall if we become isolationist? The only thing the US really has to be concerned with is the Middle East - and Europe and japan are far more relient on their oil than we are. I think Europe can start pulling it's weight. If you calim our economy would be hurt by the instability - Europe will even be more so. Are you also saying that the world sits on America's shoulders and that if we decide to become isolationist - Europe won't pick up the slack? Because if you are - this is EXACTLY why I think we should become isolationist. I think the world relies too much on us and then likes to criticise us every move we make like some armchair quarterback.

You seem to forget; “we” didn’t exist then. The idea of a common bound uniting all Europeans may not be recent, but certainly wasn’t given any credit. There wasn’t a “we” then, there were only British, French, Germans, Portuguese, etc. The ocean thing that you seem to attribute such importance didn’t matter. Everyone there or here felt the same; “it isn't us, it isn’t our business.”

I don't forget that Europe was not a connected enitity like it is now under the EU - but Germany is your neighbor. You mean just because you weren't the EU - you had no direct interest in doing something about Hitler. Germany was 600 miles from you - whereas Germany was 3,000+ miles from the US - who do you think Germany has more of an affect on? We care more about what happens in Central and South America because they are in our neighborhood and have more of an affect on us - then they have on you. I don't think you care too much about Nicaragua and Colombia as much as we do.

[Elvellon]

If you look at the history of the modern Middle East - you will find that the main players were the British and French. They are the ones who divided up the lands and created the countries as they stand today - regardless of ethnic strife. This is one of the reasons Iraq is made up of basically three regions.

I disagree; the main players I speak of are the modern, contemporaneous local nations. The others play important roles, according with their force but mostly secondary, with the exception of certain specific events.

It's not wasted. Which MAJOR democractic/capitalist countries are there that we are currently propping up that will fall if we become isolationist? The only thing the US really has to be concerned with is the Middle East - and Europe and japan are far more relient on their oil than we are. I think Europe can start pulling it's weight. If you calim our economy would be hurt by the instability - Europe will even be more so. Are you also saying that the world sits on America's shoulders and that if we decide to become isolationist - Europe won't pick up the slack? Because if you are - this is EXACTLY why I think we should become isolationist. I think the world relies too much on us and then likes to criticise us every move we make like some armchair quarterback.

1- I wasn’t speaking of the democracies in the Western world, but of those poor (or not so poor), less developed countries, only superficially democratic. And of a possible cascade effect among them.
2- Yes, our economy would suffer also assuredly, but the tread was not about Europe. If it was I would have talked of it, not about the consequences for the US.
3- I’m saying that the US economy would suffer if the US would become isolationist. Not only because of the Middle East but also because if other economies suffer (like Europe as you well reminded) so will the US economy. After all, we are each other main trade partners. So if you were less hit directly (perhaps, but there are other issues but oil) you would still have fewer partners to trade with.

I don't forget that Europe was not a connected enitity like it is now under the EU - but Germany is your neighbor. You mean just because you weren't the EU - you had no direct interest in doing something about Hitler. Germany was 600 miles from you - whereas Germany was 3,000+ miles from the US - who do you think Germany has more of an affect on? We care more about what happens in Central and South America because they are in our neighborhood and have more of an affect on us - then they have on you. I don't think you care too much about Nicaragua and Colombia as much as we do.

It isn’t simply about a semi-political/economical entity. It is about a conscience. To be a European meant what today means to be an Asian, you are from that continent, so? Do you think that China should feel responsible about the Middle East?

Or perhaps it is about a common culture you now can, perhaps, easily identify. But that perception is also recent; at that time it mattered more the local differences than the similitude’s.

It is because Germany was a neighbour? That was something that only mattered in how closely you watched the other. In the end, nations acted when they started to fell threatened. The difference is, the European nations acted first because they were near and the danger was felt first. But to act before than they did would mean a common identity, and there wasn’t any.

Also, in Europe, as in the US, the memory of WWI was very strong, leading for people to be willing to take greater risks (in delaying war) in the hope of maintaining peace.

As for the relation of the US with central and South America I would ask first, what period are you referring? Then or now?

[Sheeana]

Adapt, and move on.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
1- I wasn’t speaking of the democracies in the Western world, but of those poor (or not so poor), less developed countries, only superficially democratic. And of a possible cascade effect among them.
2- Yes, our economy would suffer also assuredly, but the tread was not about Europe. If it was I would have talked of it, not about the consequences for the US.
3- I’m saying that the US economy would suffer if the US would become isolationist. Not only because of the Middle East but also because if other economies suffer (like Europe as you well reminded) so will the US economy. After all, we are each other main trade partners. So if you were less hit directly (perhaps, but there are other issues but oil) you would still have fewer partners to trade with.

So don't you think that Europe shold take more of a role in world affairs instead of always calling upon the US? Some day we will get upset enough with the world whining about us never doing anything right. There is already SERIOOUS talk of pulling out of the UN - it has been getting stronger and stronger through the years.

It isn’t simply about a semi-political/economical entity. It is about a conscience. To be a European meant what today means to be an Asian, you are from that continent, so? Do you think that China should feel responsible about the Middle East?

If they were just in a war with the Middle East - I think they should feel responsible and concerned about the Middle East. Europe had just been at war with Germany and your direct neighbors always have an effect. If Canada was starting to mass troops along our border - or starting to mobilize (it would be suicidal, but anywa) we would be more concerned about it before you would - and we would take action.

Or perhaps it is about a common culture you now can, perhaps, easily identify. But that perception is also recent; at that time it mattered more the local differences than the similitude’s.

No - you were neighbors. What NY does has an effect on NJ - and we have an effect on them. We watch each other - we have different cultures though - different states. I know that people from the outside look at the US as one country - but we are no different than what the EU is becoming. True the cultural differences between the French and Germans or the Germans and the British are much stronger, but we still have differences here that cause us to keep an eye on each other.

It is because Germany was a neighbour? That was something that only mattered in how closely you watched the other. In the end, nations acted when they started to fell threatened. The difference is, the European nations acted first because they were near and the danger was felt first. But to act before than they did would mean a common identity, and there wasn’t any.

Europe was working together. Together Europe decided that Hitler could have Czeckloslovakia but was told to leave Poland alone. He agreed and invaded Czeckloslovakia without any problems - he then went after Poland and that's when Europe woke up.

Also, in Europe, as in the US, the memory of WWI was very strong, leading for people to be willing to take greater risks (in delaying war) in the hope of maintaining peace.

Yes - you were more than happy to appease Hitler hoping he'd just exterminate the jews locally and not bother with you guys. There was all this evidence that he would be happy with that - and Churchill had tried waking up Europe to him.

As for the relation of the US with central and South America I would ask first, what period are you referring? Then or now?

It doesn't matter. The US has always taken a direct interest in Central and South America. Even while we were isolationists - we told Europe - stay out of the western hemisphere. If Central America is extremely unstable and there is a possibility of it spreading into Mexico then that is of DIRECT concern to the US - where as it would only be of passing concern to Europe.

[jerseydevil]

Actually this question posed in this thread isn't whether America should become isolationist or what would happen to America is we did - it's what would happen to the world if we did.

I personally feel that without us - the world would be a much more dangerous place. I think we have done a lot to protect countries and make the world a safer and better place - even while others whine abour our actions and have our presidents characterized as Hitler (Bush wasn't the first President Europeans had dressed up as Hitler). I think the world would be sorry if we became isolationists or if we pulled out of the UN - even while they ridicule us.

[Elvellon]

So don't you think that Europe shold take more of a role in world affairs instead of always calling upon the US? Some day we will get upset enough with the world whining about us never doing anything right. There is already SERIOOUS talk of pulling out of the UN - it has been getting stronger and stronger through the years.

An interesting subject, but different from the original one. I don’t believe we always call you. We occasionally do call you, under the NATO alliance, (if you are talking of Yugoslavia), we also offered our aid, under the spirit of alliance, in the Afghanistan. The US decided to go mostly alone; that was your choice, but didn’t had to be so.

If they were just in a war with the Middle East - I think they should feel responsible and concerned about the Middle East. Europe had just been at war with Germany and your direct neighbors always have an effect. If Canada was starting to mass troops along our border - or starting to mobilize (it would be suicidal, but anywa) we would be more concerned about it before you would - and we would take action.

You see? That was what happened. When the neighbour started to be seen as a real threat for them, they acted, not before.

No - you were neighbors. What NY does has an effect on NJ - and we have an effect on them. We watch each other - we have different cultures though - different states. I know that people from the outside look at the US as one country - but we are no different than what the EU is becoming. True the cultural differences between the French and Germans or the Germans and the British are much stronger, but we still have differences here that cause us to keep an eye on each other.

We were not, and are not, like American states. We were never a country; there was never a common identity (that may be appearing just now), cultural differences are in an entirely different level from those that distinguish American states among themselves (and were even more so then). That you use that example demonstrates clearly that you are failing to understand the fundamental difference of the issue.

Europe was working together. Together Europe decided that Hitler could have Czeckloslovakia but was told to leave Poland alone. He agreed and invaded Czeckloslovakia without any problems - he then went after Poland and that's when Europe woke up.

That is a real overstatement. Europe was not working together. As it happened in the past, some nations had a defensive alliance, against others, that in turn had also their alliance. And many were not allied with any of them.

It doesn't matter. The US has always taken a direct interest in Central and South America. Even while we were isolationists - we told Europe - stay out of the western hemisphere. If Central America is extremely unstable and there is a possibility of it spreading into Mexico then that is of DIRECT concern to the US - where as it would only be of passing concern to Europe.

It matters because the way it manifested that interest varies with the historical period.
Besides, the US considered since an early time South and Central America as their sphere of interest, thus the reason for your concern. You may remember that no European state then had such a sphere of interest encompassing all of Europe, nor enjoyed such an undisputed military superiority in relation to the others.

Actually this question posed in this thread isn't whether America should become isolationist or what would happen to America is we did - it's what would happen to the world if we did.

even while others whine abour our actions and have our presidents characterized as Hitler (Bush wasn't the first President Europeans had dressed up as Hitler). I think the world would be sorry if we became isolationists or if we pulled out of the UN - even while they ridicule us.

1-I believe it is both issues.
2-No one here was calling Bush of Hitler. If you have an issue about that name-calling, I suggest you bring it to the person(s) who said it, and do not insinuate, as you are doing, that all Europeans are Anti-American bigots.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by afro-elf
What would happen if America practiced Isolationism?

Most other countries would jump on the "Isolationist" bandwagon too.

Black markets (and mafia style activity) would quickly spring up for products desired, but not made within a country.

Certain people would agressivly buy up a countries comodities (within a certain product area) and get very rich by having near monopolies within a country.

Current comsumption habits would be forced to change, in all countries. There would eventually be more diversity in the world again.

Politics could become even shadyier (sp?) with the ties between government and manufacturing/marketing becoming intertwined.


Inflation, due mostly to energy prices.

Environmentalism would take it hard, as the US scrambled to keep up with energy demands from within the country. But hopefully....Yankee ingenuity would give rise to new energy sources. (and lack of cheap energy would give rise to more conservation)


Maybe!

I can't remember, why is isolationism so bad?