Do you think our country needs an isolationist president?

Question

I hardly believe nations halfway across the globe constitute as a area that needs to be considered as a national interest. In many cases our aggressive foreign policy has done more harm for us then good. I personally believe a isolationist president would do us good, allowing us to fix internal problems before trying to overtax our power.

Answer 1

Having an idea of and a handle on what is going on in the rest of the world prevents recurrence of past events such as Hitler, WWII, and well the rise of any evil dictator bent on global domination. If you were Jewish in Germany in the late 1930's to early 40's you would be wishing someone was looking. The United States is an awesome power and with awesome power comes even more awesome responsibility. Why should we police the world? Because we can. It is our duty to put an end to tyranny, oppression, mass murder, genocide, and all atrocities against the innocent. If not us, no one will. It will grow and devour all of mankind. The weak can not rise up against injustice. That leaves us. The strong. Our freedom dictates our responsibility.  

Answer 2

You need to read a history book.

The last time we had an "isolationist" was in the early '30's.

How did that work out for us....and the world?

Answer 3

look at the labels on all the products we buy at the local stores. Clothing, machinery, cars, jewelry, do dads, even most of our food comes from somewhere else. To be isolationist, we would need to open farmlands to have people move out of the cities, but the work would kill half of those who were sent back to the farm.and manufacturing would be impossible unless we the workers took less than 1/2 the pay we now get.I don't think we would survive.

Answer 4

I think an isolationist president would be an excellent idea for this country. We need to bring our troops home and I dont just mean Iraq. We still have 40 thousand troops in Korea sixty years after the end of that war. Let Europe and the rest of the world pay for their own national defense while we invest the billions in our own country. We should keep our troops and our FOREIGN AID right here in our land. See if the rest of the world hates us or begs us to come back.

Answer 5

I suppose you think Obama is an isolationist? Not!

Answer 6

isolationist NO

non interventionist WAY PAST TIME

there is a difference

Answer 7

In my opinion, isolationism doesn't solve problems. If any thing it will inhibit a country.

-----------------------------

Pros:

You are responsible for your own economy

You fight your own wars

And yes, you can generally solve internal problems

----------------------------

Cons:

Your country's economy will fluxuate within its own bounds; example: if your country is working to its full potential at one specific time, lets say 30k, that will be its max. The economy of your country will always be compared to 30k, it will never be any higher.

Since there is a threshold, you will have a lower standard of living compared to other countries.

There would be no travel and the boarders would be closed. The way isolationism works is that you have to prove to your citizens that your country is the best in the world. You lie to them and don't allow for comparison with other countries.

Isolationist countries will often get pulled into wars without them wanting to go and are often "picked-on" or are the first attacked since they have no treaties; No Alliance = No Repercussions (Without the correct geological formations, it is nearly impossible to remain neutral during war-time, hence Ireland, Japan, Switzerland {oceans, mountain ranges, etc})

Strength in numbers, it is easier to have joint operations if you are in a war so that your country doesn't have massive casualites.

Studies: Science, Political, Economic, Collegiate; they will all be deprived if you don't allow information to cross borders

----------------------------------

I'm sure there are several other Pros and Cons but that is just a rough gathering of info I can think of at the moment.  

Answer 8

No, we don't need Isolationism. If we were Isolationists, we would seal our borders, close down our harbors, and keep our own stuff here at home, rather than overseas.

What we NEED is non-interventionism, where we don't intervene politically, and militarily on another country's affairs, and business. We need to withdraw our troops overseas, we need to stop policing the world, we need to stop sending aid, weapons, or even government sponsored aid, it is all corrupt. We just need diplomacy, and intervene by visiting other nations, and talking to them, not just with a barrel of a gun, or sending a CIA to p**s off another nation.

If we reallt adore freedom and liberty, we need to promote it with diplomacy and words, not weapons. Good question.

Answer 9

We need a diplomat. Isolation isn't the answer. Diplomacy is.

America is supposed to aide the less fortunate countries around the world, instead of invading them or turning a blind eye, like we have for the last 8 years.

Answer 10

There is a difference between isiolationists and non-interventionists. Ron Paul was a non-interventionists, not an isolationist. I assume that is were you get the idea from.

He is a very, very smart man. He stand ground no matter how much dirt is thrown at him. He has defended our civil liberties for many, many years.