Should USA Return to Isolationism?

[Zeno]

Did not Pat Boo-Cannon have some isolationist doctrine awhile back? I never really keep up on these witchdoctors but I half remember some pundits ranting against this or for this or something.

Of course how Major a politician he his is a debate. But I detest political debates. So I must leave now.

-Zeno

[nicky g]

"The fact that he was getting it and secretly working on nukes behind our backs (in violation of agreements) shows what kind of character he has. "

In violation of an agreement? Oh no! The US would never violate an international agreement, that's for sure. And I'm sure if t did, we would all agree to punitive measures in response, right?

Why would Saddam reinvade Kuwait? So he could get bombed to hell again? Incidentally, does anyone know the history to the previous invasion of Kuwait/what Saddam's pretext was? Hint: it wasn't just for fun.

[adios]

In the scope of US history non-isolationism is a fairly new thing. As Zeno mentioned Pat Buchanon has advocated such a policy more or less. I mean if the USA is only doing bad in the world, let's stop and mind our own business. We'll solve our own problems (we've got plenty), Iraq can solve theirs, Israel and the Palestiniams can solve theirs, Europe can solve theirs, North Korea can solve theirs, etc.

[B-Man]

In violation of an agreement? Oh no! The US would never violate an international agreement, that's for sure.

Here we go again, the typical, liberal two-wrongs-make-a-right argument.

Why would Saddam reinvade Kuwait? So he could get bombed to hell again?

He would do it to steal their oil and to further his goals of conquest. He would be under no threat of getting bombed again if the U.S. returned to isolationism--that is the pretext under which the question was raised. Obviously right now he couldn't do it, but if the U.S. left the neighborhood, he could rebuild his army and do whatever he wanted, as I said.

Incidentally, does anyone know the history to the previous invasion of Kuwait/what Saddam's pretext was? Hint: it wasn't just for fun.

I hope you are not suggesting the invasion of Kuwait and the burning of their oil wells was justified by anything may have claimed as a legitimate reason, are you?

[nicky g]

"Here we go again, the typical, liberal two-wrongs-make-a-right argument"

That's not a fair characterisation of my point. They don't. My point is that the US should look to home before running around waging wars on other countries. Why should you expect any respect or help if you refuse to honour international treaties but insist that others do?

"I hope you are not suggesting the invasion of Kuwait and the burning of their oil wells was justified by anything may have claimed as a legitimate reason, are you? "

There is a deifference between justifying something and providing a background. The Gulf war could quite easily have been averted. Fistly, the US ambassador to the Iraq told Saddam that the US would not interfere in inter-Arab problems in the build up to the invasion, which was not particularly smart. Secondly, Iraq's economy was being crippled at the time by vast overproduction of oil by Kuwait and the UAE, way above the agreed OPEC amount. The US did not put any kind of real pressure on Kuwait to stop, and indeed there are suggestions that it was behind the decisions - it told Kuwait that it could carry on because the US would protect it from invasion (while telling Iraq something very different). Thirdly, Bush rejected several offers to unilaterally withdraw from Kuwait in return for a ceasefire and negotiations on the oil problem, and then massacred the retreating Iraq army during its retreat. Fourthly, the vast majority of the stories to justify the war (that Iraqi soldiers were throwing babies out of cradles, that Iraqi troops were building up on the Saudi border) turned out to be out-and-out fabrications.

None of these things justify either the invasion or the burning of the oilfields. They do show that the war could have been averted, that the US was complict in starting it, that it could have been resolved peacefully and with far fewer Iraqi deaths, and that the idea that Saddam simply wants to take over Kuwait for Iraqi imperialist reasons is absurd. Prior to the Gulf war Saddam had settled most outstanding disagreements with Kuwait, that previous Iraqi governemnts had refused to compromise on. The US itself has invaded countries and toppled governments for far serious matters.

[andyfox]

Mr. Buchanan doesn't qualify as a major politician. I have heard no leader of either political party say that the United States only does bad in the world. I have heard no leader say we should not be involved in attempting to solve the Israeli-Palestinian situation. I have heard none say that Saddam is a fine fellow, let's not worry about him at all, leave him to do as he wishes. I have heard none say that North Korea should be of no concern to us (and I have heard many say we should be paying rather more attention to that country).

No serious politician has recommended isolationism since the onset of the Cold War.

[adios]

"No serious politician has recommended isolationism since the onset of the Cold War."

Because a serious politician hasn't recommended an idea doesn't mean that it isn't worth considering. Anyway the USA more or less has to be involved in a lot of political situations throughout the world.

[AmericanAirlines]

OK everybody... So what's the solution to the Mid-East problem exactly?

Enough debate...

What exactly would you do if you had the power to decide?

Sincerely,
AA

P.S. I'm for building an base economy that's independant of outside sources, but participating in world trade such that we don't have a deficit.

But then I haven't thought out all the ramifications of that idea.

[adios]

Actually it does have some appeal. The cold war gave rise to a more active role in foreign affairs by the USA. However, the cold war is over (flame away) and it's debatable how much the USA can really do in the Middle East for instance. There was a deal on the table in 2000 that the USA tried to broker that Arafat walked away from. Phase out foreign aid over a period of time, announce that your doing so, remind those that might be inclined unprovoked attacks against the USA that we have to capability the wipe them off the face of the earth 10 times over and we've used such force in the past, build an economy as you suggest, maintain free trade .... I think you get the picture.

[John Ho]

Drop our support of Israel and allow it to be conquered. Eventually the Arab nations will realize it was not Israel that was the source of all their misery but their own ineptness. Societies will change and democracy will emerge. Perhaps the Middle East can become a vibrant part of the world again.

This won't happen with the Israel issue inflaming everyone. Plus the US doesn't really have an vital interest in keeping Israel around. All our support of Israel has done is cause us problems.