Printable View
If all goes well, there should be a pretty much self-explanatory poll above.
To be clear, I would like to know which of the two traditions you favour, not which one you think dominates. And I would like to limit it to American isolationism or interventionism.
Somewhat random but nonetheless interesting article on HNN.
To be accurate, you should also inform voters whether you're discussing military policy, political/economic policy, or living in a hole in the ground...
I don't believe in an interventionist military policy, but I also don't believe in bribing everyone into acting decently either.
Non-US, and Interventionalism, but only to a degree. For Example You've got good interventionalism in Afghanistan, but then you got Vietnam. Which was pretty much a bad decision.
Im staunch supporter of Gahism(read retard).~:wave: About the actual subject in some cases i support US Interventionism in some other cases Isolationism.I think the matter is far from black and white.:bow:
Intervening when there's a real threat AND the intervention would improve the situation is ok with me. But intervening with neutrals, causing more violence and terrorism that has ever existed before and fueling islamic fundamentalism which has been comparatively calm before the Iraq war, is not my idea of a good foreign policy.
Obviously that ideology would be called isolationism by isolationists, and interventionism by interventionists, so I don't know which choice in the poll above should be chosen. So I vote for Gahism!
I would favour US (military) intervention only in certain circumstances, such as to prevent a genocide or to defend a country that is being invaded by another. I would not favour US interventionism when it is simply an extension of US foreign policy.
I dont favour pre-emptive strikes, I do like interventionism when it is peacekeeping and serves a goal higher and more noble than to get lucrative contracts for american entrepeneurs (why doesnt the french have a word for that?!)
Peackeeping? Is that what you call it when you put a bunch of guys out there in pretty blue helmets with no bullets in their guns and tell them not to fight back? I call it leading sacraficial lambs to the altar and I don't support it.
I would say that since the US is already soooooo involved with nearly every country on earth in trade, commerce, aid, and militarily we really don’t have much of a choice but to be Interventionists. Our interests are at stake with nearly every major decision made in every country we do business with/in.
In hindsight should we be as connected to other countries as we are… no. but it’s too late now.
I am in favor of the United States doing what it believes to be necessary to insure the security of its people and the nation.
If that means intervention into some other land - then so be it. If it means let others suffer the consequences of thier own actions (isolationism) then so be it.
Its not a black and white question - its not one or the other, it must be decision based upon the situation and circumstances and their impact upon the United States.
Gonna have to go with the big, retarded Gah on this one. As Redleg and others have pointed out, whether to be isolationist or interventionist really depends on the situation. Think about it -- a completely isolationist America would be absurd. What, we wouldn't trade with anyone? We would end all foreign aid? We wouldn't act militarily no matter what?
Likewise, a totally interventionist America would be exhausted and out of cash very quickly. Ooooh, we'd better intervene in the People's Republic of Freedonia, I hear they're being mean to their opposition party. Talk about the World Policeman.
This is a real Gah sort of question.
Mostly, I favor focused interventionism that works to better US and humanitarian interests.
Some days, I get fed up with all the crap and long for the simplicity of an isolationist stance.
I do not favor imperialism. The USA is not psychologically constituted to be an imperial power. I do not consider our current efforts at stamping out extra-national terrorism as an imperialist effort.
I view efforts to spread democracy and capitalism as being in the long-term self interest of the USA. Democracies seldom go to war with one another and the more trading partners available the merrier.
Side note:
Many US citizens expect gratitude for US largesse and get angry when the other folks aren't grateful for our hand-me-downs. I don't put much stock in gratitude beyond the purely interpersonal level, so this side of it vexes me less than it does some.
What is Pindarism? How does it relate to U.S. foreign policy? Is this a personal slight?
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
So what is to be done about countries that democratically vote for a system that isn't capitalistic? Why is spreading of capitalism so much in the interest of the USA? It's not really about the American people, because many of the successful corporations in the USA are formed by immigrants, many of the people with top positions in American companies move there from countries where life is less profitable for people with their skills because American corporations have very good competition abilities than many companies elsewhere. So it's just the flag of America that benefits from the current capitalism and economic competition, not the people that are born in the USA.
Mostly, I favor focused interventionism that works to better US and humanitarian interests.
Some days, I get fed up with all the crap and long for the simplicity of an isolationist stance.
I do not favor imperialism. The USA is not psychologically constituted to be an imperial power. I do not consider our current efforts at stamping out extra-national terrorism as an imperialist effort.
I view efforts to spread democracy and capitalism as being in the long-term self interest of the USA. Democracies seldom go to war with one another and the more trading partners available the merrier.
Side note:
Many US citizens expect gratitude for US largesse and get angry when the other folks aren't grateful for our hand-me-downs. I don't put much stock in gratitude beyond the purely interpersonal level, so this side of it vexes me less than it does some.
Also - isn't China's new capitalism a bigger threat to the USA than Chinese and Soviet communism ever was? Now USA and Europe, through WTO, are even discussing tolls and taxes to limit free trade from China, because China can produce many goods much cheaper than USA or Europe can. That wasn't the case when they were more communistic.
How is China's capitalism a threat to the security of the United States? The more dependant on foreign trade China becomes, the less likely they will be to engage in actions that could upset that balance. Sure, the USA is seeing a trade defecit, but it's nothing new for us.
Besides, think about these 2 models...
Your GDP is 100billion, but your economy is entirely self-contained.
or
Your GDP is 1trillion. You run a 100 billion trade defecit. You're still retaining 9 times the created wealth of scenario A.
I know which one I would rather preside over.
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix:
There is no free trade with China. Practically every container that is shipped to the US from China goes back either empty or with some raw goods, rarely with any products. The situation is not fair and does need to be addressed. I think what is being discussed are ways to make our trade with China more mutually beneficial. As it is it is very one sided.
Also - isn't China's new capitalism a bigger threat to the USA than Chinese and Soviet communism ever was? Now USA and Europe, through WTO, are even discussing tolls and taxes to limit free trade from China, because China can produce many goods much cheaper than USA or Europe can. That wasn't the case when they were more communistic.
Side note: I recently helped to organize a Supply Chain Management Conference and this was a big issue for many manufactures in the region. One Mfg has even started to send back foodstuffs in the containers they send back to China just to help promote trade. Still pretty lopsided, import $5. Million in products and export $10,000 in food back. :no:
Edit#1: Don’s #15 post makes good sense.
Edit #2: Happy day it’s my 900th post!!
Originally Posted by Pindar:
I'd like to know more about this system myself. :laugh4:
What is Pindarism? How does it relate to U.S. foreign policy? Is this a personal slight?
My brief contribution: Is the duty of a nation to take action against a perceived threat (yadda yadda yadda, you know the rest). Perception is very subjective and a threat can be difficult to quantify. To do a proper threat/risk analysis you need proper intelligence, intelligence which took a bit hit in the '90s.
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
The more economically strong a country is, the more effective military it can form. The more economically strong a country is, the more they can influence international politics. The more economically strong a country is, the more effectively they can form conglomerate corporations and buy all competitors and create monopoly which would further strengthen their economy, and thereby indirectly their military. Also, economical competition from China could economically weaken the USA considerably considering how much cheaper China produces the goods (through often inhumane salaries, the sad truth is :wall: ). Since war is all about money it's important to maintain economical strength, but if this can only be achieved by inhumane salaries in our own countries then the Chinese model would have won, which would mean USA would have been defeated by the ideologies of China that American and European ideals are against. Then again, some wouldn't consider a country defeated until it has it's flag replaced by another.
How is China's capitalism a threat to the security of the United States? The more dependant on foreign trade China becomes, the less likely they will be to engage in actions that could upset that balance. Sure, the USA is seeing a trade defecit, but it's nothing new for us.
Besides, think about these 2 models...
Your GDP is 100billion, but your economy is entirely self-contained.
or
Your GDP is 1trillion. You run a 100 billion trade defecit. You're still retaining 9 times the created wealth of scenario A.
I know which one I would rather preside over.
Originally Posted by yesdachi:
:barrel: :balloon:
Edit #2: Happy day it’s my 900th post!!
You forgot one small but critical detail Legio.... the more economically strong a country is, the more 'rich fat cats' there are that want to stay that way. They're not going to let the PLA invade Taiwan when party officials own more than 50% of the businesses in Taiwan. It's far from being a fail-safe, but economic security tends to promote a 'let's not rock the boat' attitude among those in power, particularly among those who have much to lose, money-wise.
As for China developing conglomerates that will buy out and own the United States, I'd like to say that first, in the 80's it was predicted that Japan would own the USA lock, stock & barrel by 1995 (how's that coming along) and second, IF the Chinese are able to develop a superior economy, they deserve to be in the lead. If they have the economic muscle to come in and eat the USA's lunch, then they should. Capitalism is Darwinism in the economic realm... it's value neutral and it doesn't play favorites.
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
Your filled with spot on insight today Don.:yes:
Capitalism is Darwinism in the economic realm... it's value neutral and it doesn't play favorites.
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
An ancient and fundamental truth! It also has the tendency to bring down empires.
You forgot one small but critical detail Legio.... the more economically strong a country is, the more 'rich fat cats' there are that want to stay that way. They're not going to let the PLA invade Taiwan when party officials own more than 50% of the businesses in Taiwan. It's far from being a fail-safe, but economic security tends to promote a 'let's not rock the boat' attitude among those in power, particularly among those who have much to lose, money-wise.
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
Since I'm the root of the 'ism'. I guess I get to define its width and breadth. We know right from the start it must be a good thing. Might not be so bad to have an 'ism'. :laugh4:
I'd like to know more about this system myself. :laugh4:
Pindarism - A governing philosophy that intentionally leaves the people dazed and bewildered. Things seem to be working correctly, but nobody knows how or why. Eventually, it gets to the point where they just give up, say "Gah!", and go back to work without worrying about the political policies. ~;)
Far too hard a question to answer with the poll options so I voted GAH.
I believe in international intervention, which would clearly involve the US, so I wouldn't be for their isolationism. International cooperation, mainly through the UN, should be the way for ward for global conflicts and strife, which means all nations need to be involved.
China is very interesting. They are walking a political/economic a tight rope. Autocracy and a vibrant economy are unsustainable over the long term. Either, the nation chooses to maintain autocratic political control and thereby stymie the country's innovation and flexibility or they turn to a liberal political model so as to maximize economic opportunity.
At present, China is maintaining its balance by feeding nationalistic sentiments. Taiwan being the most simple and obvious example. This is prudent as it ties into the larger dynastic cultural milieu of the nation as the Middle Kingdom, and distracts from the rampant corruption and other growing pains.
Which direction will China go? Hard to say. Presently, over forty percent of China's exports are headed into the U.S. They are also building the country's first blue water navy. China claims most of the South China Sea as national territory but is surrounded by nuclear powers as in: India, Pakistan, Russia a potential N. Korea and a Japan that could turn nuclear in a month. China has a GNP of over 8 percent, but 8 percent growth is the bare minimum just to sustain the hordes that are flooding to the cities. China could go either way, but I think engaging China in the hopes of seeing a free and vibrant nation is the right policy both economically and politically.
Originally Posted by drone:
That sounds about right, but if Pindarism includes the dreaded 'gah' (its polar opposite and the bane of prudence and reason) then the stance must be a variant of Hegelianism. :book:
Pindarism - A governing philosophy that intentionally leaves the people dazed and bewildered. Things seem to be working correctly, but nobody knows how or why. Eventually, it gets to the point where they just give up, say "Gah!", and go back to work without worrying about the political policies. ~;)
What is Pindarism?
It is the bane of gah.
How does it relate to U.S. foreign policy?
It has gaht nothing to do with it.
Is this a personal slight?
Not at all. It is just inaneness free from gahism.
:balloon2:
Originally Posted by Seamus:
I fully support this line of reasoning.
I view efforts to spread democracy and capitalism as being in the long-term self interest of the USA. Democracies seldom go to war with one another and the more trading partners available the merrier.
Alas, our own history has made the west take the combination of both - democracy and capitalism - for granted. Democracy, when not firmly rooted in a tradition of liberty and a functioning civil society can yield surprisingly hostile results. The FIS in Algeria and recently the Hamas victory in Palestine spring to mind. Capitalism without democracy as in China may prove to be an even more dreadful combination. I am still not sure what to make of the impact China's rise will have.
Anyway, the great thing about viewing efforts to spread democracy and capitalism as being in the long-term self interest of the USA, is that it combines both an 'idealistic' and a 'realistic' foreign policy.
I am a staunch supporter, admirer even, of the tradition of idealistic interventionism in American policy. Heck, I even admire Jimmy Carter, but I believe I am the one person on this planet who does so:oops:
At it's best, idealistic interventionalism has made America reach heights that are perhaps unparrelled in the history of man. Admirable as idealistic interventionism is, it can't be expected to be the prevalent drive behind America's foreign policy. Nor should it be. Unaccompanied by a sense of realism it can make for tragic mistakes too. Carter springs to mind again, but even - to a limited extent - Iraq.
'Realistic' interventionalism without idealism is a tragedy outright. Definately the downside of American interventionalism. Ranging from the cynical policy of Kissinger, to the persistently destabilising interventions in Latin America, to, again - this time to a large extent - Iraq.
Overall however, when it is a right mix of realism and idealism, as in the case of Seamus, an interventionalist America is a source of stability and progress in the world, to the benefit of both America and the rest of the world.
The poll is pretty bad, either you support intervening at every possible chance or you want to sit in a hole. I believe that every situation needs to be thought out and if it benefits us or its humanly neccesary to intervene then we should. I also believe that when we do invade we hold all rights to use our own companies there, we don't need to be paying foreign companies when we can benefit our own. I think we need to halt most of our contribution in foreign aid until we have our own taken care of first.
As for china, china's a gimp. They can't invade because they need our money, and our food. Declaring war on us would result in famine and untold millions starving to death. China might be growing now, but their in for hard times. Their food supplies are stressed to the limits and one bad harvest will cuase many to starve. Their using 2x's the fertilizers and pesticides we used to use in the 50's. Their farm land and water is slowly approaching levels of heavy metals that will make growing food their impossible. They've created too many farms near hills and with increased rains they've been loosing tons of farmland to erosion. China's in bad shape I doubt they'll make it through another decade intact. They might seem rich, but all the money in the world wont help when there's no food. When you can't produce enough food to feed your starving masses it only takes some defoliant to turn a clenched sword into a open hand. And a side note, China is a Communist country not a capitalist nuff said.
We are by all means the greatest power the world has seen. Because of that we can craft the world to fit our needs. And since we can, we should, but carefully.
Originally Posted by Pindar:
Pindarism as a policy does not include "Gah!", but it can lead to a "Gah!" response from the people at times. The masses must be allowed their petty revolts... ~;)
That sounds about right, but if Pindarism includes the dreaded 'gah' (its polar opposite and the bane of prudence and reason) then the stance must be a variant of Hegelianism. :book: